| RE: [cdt-dev] Proposal for Release Schedules |
|
Which is your favourite, Dave? I would love it if we can get CDT 3.0.2
working with Eclipse 3.1 and Eclipse 3.2. I do not expect HEAD to work with
Eclipse 3.1 as we’ll start using Eclipse 3.2 APIs over time. I’d
also like us to investigate the changes in the Abstract Editor to see if we
have code in the CEditor that is no longer necessary in an effort to reduce our
maintenance load. That would mean the HEAD and cdt_3_0 would start to diverge.
I’m not sure which of your options this one maps to J. Cheers, Doug From:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Inglis A couple options for
editor problem; a)
Move API in editor to 3.2 (move our annotation navigation to
Eclipse 3.2) and forget about CDT 3.0.x for Eclipse 3.2. b)
Move API in editor to 3.2 (move our annotation navigation to Eclipse
3.2) and patch CDT 3.0.x stream to work with Eclipse 3.2 (change methods to not
collide with changes made in AbstractTextEditor and properly override
AbstractTextEditor to use our annotation navigation). c)
Make both HEAD and CDT 3.0.x stream the same for Eclipse 3.2
(change methods to not collide with changes made in AbstractTextEditor and
properly override AbstractTextEditor to use our annotation navigation). From:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hey gang, We talked about this at this month’s conference call
and I’d like to get the community’s input and call for a vote on
this. Essentially, we want to avoid triple streaming. We have a
need to move to Eclipse 3.2 before API freeze happens next month to validate
that we are happy with any API changes (which we aren’t but kind of lost
that first battle). We are also considering maintenance work on the CDT 3.0.x
stream for the Jan timeframe. And finally, we have some sizable changes that we
had considered for a CDT 3.1 for Feb/Mar. I think this is a little too much release activity for the
number of committers we have working on the CDT today, and the consensus on
call was that this was that we should probably only have one release in the
Feb-ish timeframe. What we haven’t figured out if there will be enough
content to call it a 3.1 or if it could be a 3.0.2. But we can work that out as
we go. So my proposal is this: move HEAD to Eclipse 3.2, which
requires some code changes due to API changes in the abstract editor and allows
us to start working towards any new APIs that are coming (e.g. debug). Use the
cdt_3_0 stream for the next release towards the end of Feb. Toughts? Doug |