I’d prefer we have a solution where we don’t need to fork CDT before putting it in a product. I’d like to at least achieve some unity in the UI from product
to product to Eclipse package (which is also a product in a way).
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Marc Khouzam
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 11:07 AM
To: 'CDT General developers list.'
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] CDT (was RE: What's New in CDT 8.0)
Those reference to CDT should be as translatable strings I believe.
They can be replaced easily by vendors, no?
That being said, using C/C++ is fine with me
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Schaefer, Doug
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 10:30 AM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: [cdt-dev] CDT (was RE: What's New in CDT 8.0)
It just hit me looking at this doc that we’ve allowed the term “CDT” to creep into the UI. We’ve previously had a policy that we weren’t going to do that, which
is why everything is named “C/C++”. The idea being that the general user who gets CDT commercially won’t know what the term “CDT” means.
Any thoughts on that? We may need to fix this for SR-1, the first release usually adopted by commercial vendors.
Doug.
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andrew Gvozdev
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 10:26 AM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] What's New in CDT 8.0
Yes, I'll take what is on the wiki, maybe rearrange some and put that to CVS.
|
