| [cdt-dev] Minutes from Feb Conf Call |
|
Here’s something I’m going to get a habit of
doing, sending the minutes by e-mail right after the call. (Did I ever tell you
I hate editing wiki’s :) Please correct me if I got anything wrong and
comment on anything written here. Attendees: Mikhail K, Norbert, HP, Chris R, Craig R, Leo,
Doug S, Bryan W, Fred P, Dave I, Bill H, Ken R, Markus S, Mikhail S, Mikhail V -
CDT 3.1.2 o
Build schedule ready: Bits need to
be posted to Callisto staging area on Monday, Feb 12. After some testing they’ll
be made available on the Callisto release are on Wed, Feb 14 and after the
mirrors have updated, announced on Fri, Feb 16 o
The cdt_3_1 stream will remain
active. Anyone wanting an official tagged build after 3.1.2, can send a request
to cdt-dev and one will be made. This is available to any and all. -
CDT 4.0 o
M5 bits need to be ready by Friday
Feb 16. Candidate build will be done Tuesday night Feb 13. Rebuilds will be
done as necessary. o
The Project Model work will be held
off until after M5. An updated patch will be posted next week. If no vetoes, it
can be committed as soon as M5 has been declared. o
Currently there is an M7 scheduled
for Europa mid-May. Given the volume of changes to the CDT for 4.0, we should
declare a Feature Freeze and start the ramp down in April some time and not
wait until M7. We will decide at the project meeting at EclipseCon when to do
that exactly and decide based on the feeling of quality at that time. -
Builds o
We will move both 3.1 and 4.0 builds
to twice a week, Monday and Thursday early mornings. -
HP Remote Development contribution o
I have put this is on hold. The
feedback we’ve gotten so far is that this appears to solve the same
problems RSE solves. Given that the CDT has never focused on this area of
development before, I’d like to make sure the CDT community is interested
in this before we take it. We also need to justify why this solution solves the
problem better than RSE can. o
I leave it in HP and the CDT
community to work this out. Without a community around this feature, I don’t
think we can afford to take this on. o
To be honest, I think there needs to
be a remote development project that looks at all aspects of this. This would
be similar in problem scope as the parallel tools project. If HP is interested
in starting this, maybe working with IBM and the RSE gang, that would be great. -
o
We are in a similar position with a
proposal on Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems |