To quote my mentor, Obi-Wan:
“Only
Sith deal in absolutes!”
It is my hope we will never be so rigid to
let a release go with major defects because of some rule.
So far committers were doing an amazing
job at getting things together.
I’m not quite sure what the fuss is
about. We are a heteroclite bunch with different priorities and sometimes
reality will dictates the course of action i.e. not able to fulfill a commitment.
To answer your question, it is basically
the same as Thomas already posted. Committers that know this piece of
code will have to make the call base on all the factors and when in doubt they
usually post for wider feedbacks to this list. For example, the C formatting
code was drop from the release, some work on the indexer, etc was voted down.
This may sound harsher then intended, but companies
shipping major piece of code, GCC, GDB, Mozilla etc … will usually take a
snapshot/release and do there own Q/A before incorporating the open source
project. Eclipse, CDT are no exceptions.
From:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Daoust
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 2:02
PM
To: CDT
General developers list.
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] CDT 3.0
Closing
I guess this leads to the question of which defects do
you think QNX can fix after RC3 but before RC4? At IBM we were
assuming that ALL the defects would be addressed by RC3, and we were only doing
Doc work after this.
To
me "addressed" means, to evaluate the defect, and fix it if needed,
otherwise move it to a future release. At this late stage of the release
we should know exactly which of the existing defects will be fixed before the
final release.
- Dave
|
Alain
Magloire
<alain@xxxxxxx>
Sent
by: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
07/21/2005 11:59 AM
|
Please
respond to
"CDT General developers list."
|
|
|
To
|
"CDT General
developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [cdt-dev] CDT 3.0 Closing
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
<snip>
> The reason I ask is that we have a large
number of bugs still open on
> 3.0, the vast majority owned by the gang at
QNX. I just want to make
> sure we're all on the same page.
>
Yes, we've been so tied up; things have a
surprising way of coming together
at the wrong moment. How about to see after
RC3 if an RC4 is needed? 8-)
Note: July/August release cycles are no-nos,
recipe for trouble.
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
