Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] CDT 3.0 RC3 Release Schedule 
I'd prefer if also we implemented the fix for 3.0 and delayed the build
for the fix but I don't know how everyone feels about that.


This is my preference, too.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Recoskie, Chris" <crecoskie@xxxxxx> 
To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 4:52 PM
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] CDT 3.0 RC3 Release Schedule



My vote is for #2... I'm happy with the APIs I think.  The screaming of
not being able to walk the stack will far outweigh the screaming of
those that don't want us to change the APIs so late.



I'd prefer if also we implemented the fix for 3.0 and delayed the build
for the fix but I don't know how everyone feels about that.



___________________________________________



Chris Recoskie

Software Designer

IDE Frameworks Group

Texas Instruments, Toronto
_____ 
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Sebastien Marineau
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 4:31 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] CDT 3.0 RC3 Release Schedule



Hi all,



with respect to 104421 (registers in the debug view), Alain, Mikhail and
Dave have been working on the suggestion in yesterday's email (option
#2) of implementing the CDI change (but not the full fix), to avoid a
CDI breakage in the future.



This is the options we have now:



1. We ship what we have today, and break CDI in the next bugfix release
to address the issue. This is the least risky option but is may not be
the most desirable from an API compatibility standpoint.



2. We change the CDI interface and "plumb" around it on the debug UI and
back-end. The original bug is not fixed, but we can provide the fix in
the next release without any CDI changes.

The impact of going this route:

- Alain has posted on the debug-dev mailing list the suggested CDI
changes. We would need people to review this ASAP (Freescale, TI, etc)
to ensure we are satisfied with the new API.

- Implement the change tonight/tomorrow, which means holding off on the
final RC at least for a day.

- This introduces some risk with last-minute changes.



What are people's thoughts on this?



As for the C++ browser (102195), Alain is working on disabling it.



Sebastien
_____ 

From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Doug Schaefer
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 2:05 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: [cdt-dev] CDT 3.0 RC3 Release Schedule

Hey gang,

Unless requested, I will not do a build for RC3 until we have zero bugs
left. Right now we are at two:
102195 <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=102195> maj P2 PC cdt-core-inbox@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cdt-core-inbox@xxxxxxxxxxx> NEW 3.0 StackOverFlow when updating Type Cache
104421 <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=104421> maj P3 PC Mikhailk@xxxxxxx <mailto:Mikhailk@xxxxxxx> NEW 3.0 RC3 
Register view can not show correct value when switch betw...


I can't remember who volunteered to remove the browser perspective and
associated views for 102195. Anyone? Anyone? Alain.
Cheers, 
--
Doug Schaefer, Senior Software Developer
IBM Rational Software, Ottawa Lab
Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Back to the top