Re: [cdt-dev] Re: 7.0 builds

[Andrew Gvozdev <angvoz.dev@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chris's opinion is closest to what I think. We may take a stub on build system and we need an option to change API. But considering that we are part time this may take longer than till next release. Maybe we should consider working on a branch if we really start.

I think it is qualified more for 6.1 now. It is always possible to change the number from 6.1 to 7.0. Not so easy the other way.

Andrew

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Chris Recoskie <recoskie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I have no objections for now, but depending on what we do with the build system, we might want to do a 7.0 instead. We keep talking every release about blowing up the world there. We ran out of time to continue with that in 6.0, but I think we're likely to take that up again in the next release now that we've got more committers looking into the build system.

===========================
Chris Recoskie
Team Lead, IBM CDT and RDT
IBM Toronto

Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>

Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>

Sent by: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

07/14/2009 01:07 PM

Please respond to

"CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	"CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	Re: [cdt-dev] Re: 7.0 builds

This is something we talked about at the architecture council this week so it's good timing. There are actually two versions to consider, the technical version of plug-ins which should be governed by the API rules, and then there's a marketing number.
 
I am starting to see convergence that both should probably be 6.1. Technically, we need to start locking down our APIs and supporting our integrators properly. And from a marketing perspective, I don't see the big new framework or feature that would benefit from a major version bump (although Nokia's impending debugger contribution may be close).
 
Anyone disagree with calling the next release 6.1?
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Elena Laskavaia <elaskavaia@xxxxxxx> wrote:

I think it should be 6.1 too. We can change it to 7.0 if we have API breakage, but I don't think it can be lower than 6.1


Sergey Prigogin wrote:
+ 1. I also find 6.0.100 confusing and would prefer 6.1.0.

-sergey

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Andrew Gvozdev <angvoz.dev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks, Vivian. I find 6.0.100 pretty confusing but that must be just me. "HEAD" might've been looking better but who cares.

Andrew


On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Vivian Kong <vivkong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
6.0.100 builds: http://download.eclipse.org/tools/cdt/builds/6.0.100/index.html

A build against the HEAD stream will run every Friday morning.



Regards,

Vivian Kong
IBM Eclipse CDT
IBM Canada Toronto Lab


Vivian Kong---07/13/2009 01:06:50 PM---Ok I'll update the build script. I can get a build started tomorrow as I'm out of town today.


From:	Vivian Kong/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
To:	"CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	07/13/2009 01:06 PM
Subject:	Re: [cdt-dev] Re: 7.0 builds
Sent by:	cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---




Ok I'll update the build script. I can get a build started tomorrow as I'm out of town today.

Regards,

Vivian Kong
IBM Eclipse CDT
IBM Canada Toronto Lab

Doug Schaefer ---07/13/2009 12:05:45 PM---I really don't have a feel for this and probably won't until we have a plan together. For now, can w

From:	Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>
To:	"CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	07/13/2009 12:05 PM
Subject:	Re: [cdt-dev] Re: 7.0 builds
Sent by:	cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---




I really don't have a feel for this and probably won't until we have a plan together. For now, can we do something clever like call it 6.0.100?

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Vivian Kong <vivkong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We haven't update the build script with the right version number so kicking off a build from HEAD will give you a version 6.0 build. Have we decided on the version number for Helios? If not, what version number can we use in the mean time? 6.1.0 or 7.0?

Regards,

Vivian Kong
IBM Eclipse CDT
IBM Canada Toronto Lab

Andrew Gvozdev ---07/13/2009 10:11:17 AM---Any objections if I kick off a build from the HEAD myself then? Andrew

From:		Andrew Gvozdev <angvoz.dev@xxxxxxxxx>
To:	"CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Vivian Kong/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Date:	07/13/2009 10:11 AM
Subject:	Re: 7.0 builds

---





Any objections if I kick off a build from the HEAD myself then?

Andrew

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Andrew Gvozdev <angvoz.dev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
What is the strategy regarding weekly builds toward Helios? I am interested about somewhat regular builds or more to the point tagging in CVS as we support vendor branch over here.

Thanks,
Andrew



_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev

_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev



_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev




_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev




---



_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
 

_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev

_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev

_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev