Re: [cdt-dev] Our Plans Post Helios

[<ken.ryall@xxxxxxxxx>]

Doug,

I'm not asking for a free lunch or for EDC to have its own release schedule.

I am asking to create a new branch of just the EDC plug-ins where new work
can happen that is based on Helios instead of Indigo. I am not asking for
any CDT releases to use this branch.

- Ken

> From: Schaefer Doug <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:59:20 +0200
> To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Our Plans Post Helios
> 
> See my comment on the earlier thread. There's no free lunch. EDC 2.0
> would have to go through it's own release review, which I'm not sure
> is allowed (i.e. components with thier own release schedules) by the
> Eclipse development process.
> 
> Following this logic, EDC 1.0 shouldn't have been part of CDT 7.0.
> 
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:55 AM,  <ken.ryall@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Yes, I was thinking about this issue but didn¹t have a specific example yet
>> where this might come up. But David has helpfully provided one and I¹m sure
>> there will be others as EDC is developed over the next year.
>> 
>> Here¹s my proposal: we create a new branch of the EDC plug-ins so we end up
>> with:
>> 
>> cdt_7_0: contains version 1.0 of the EDC plug-ins. No API changes or feature
>> additions. This is what we have now and can continue to be built and
>> released along with the Helios minor update releases.
>> 
>> edc_2_0: this is a new branch of just the EDC plug-ins, versioned at 2.0.
>> They are developed and built against Helios but contain API changes and
>> feature additions. They are not released along with Helios minor updates but
>> I would like to find a way for people to easily update to them in Helios if
>> they want to try them out.
>> 
>> HEAD: EDC plug-ins at version 3.0 for Indigo and CDT 8.0. I think these will
>> be much the same as the ones on the edc_2_0 branch but can accommodate
>> changes in Indigo and CDT 8.0.
>> 
>> How does that sound,
>> 
>> - Ken
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> From: ext John Cortell <rat042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reply-To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:03:37 +0200
>> To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> "cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Our Plans Post Helios
>> 
>> At 03:39 PM 6/16/2010, ken.ryall@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> 
>> The debugger in our
>> release will be based directly on the EDC sources in the 7.0.x branch so we
>> expect to maintain a steady flow of contributions to those plug-ins. Since
>> EDC is a new optional feature we will probably be more aggressive about
>> sharing new work in the EDC 7.0.x branch than we would in the main CDT
>> sources.
>> 
>> Ken, something Doug just said in another cdt-dev post made me curious about
>> this statement of yours. It sounds to me that you're planning on
>> disregarding restrictions that maintenance streams are supposed to adhere
>> to. Perhaps I'm reading too much into the message. Are you planning on
>> either adding new API or breaking existing API in EDC on the 7.0.x branch?
>> I'm not stating an objection to that, nor am I acquiescing it. I'm just
>> hoping that we air out what the message above entails.
>> 
>> I believe EFS API was added during the 6.0.x branch, and there were some
>> rumblings on that recently.
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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