Do you think it might be a good idea to take the latest
integration build and call it as RC3 and by that have common last and most
stable version of 0.7 and move forward to 1.0?
From: pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Dave Kelsey
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007
4:21 PM
To: PDT Developers
Subject: RE: [pdt-dev] PDT 1.0
Thanks for clarifying that for me Doug.
Cheers
Dave Kelsey
Mail Point 127, Hursley
int: 248760
ext: 01962-818760
Doug Schaefer <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx>
Sent
by: pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
29/03/2007 14:50
Please
respond to
PDT Developers <pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
To
|
PDT Developers <pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [pdt-dev] PDT 1.0
|
|
By stamping a build as a release, Eclipse commits
that IP has been checked and is clean. That way vendors can take those bits and
include them in their product relatively worry free. It’s one of the main
reasons Eclipse is so successful commercially.
Doug Schaefer, QNX
Software Systems
Tools PMC Member, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
From:
pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Kelsey
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:27 AM
To: PDT Developers
Subject: RE: [pdt-dev] PDT 1.0
I am a little surprised to hear that you could create an integration build and
make it publically available without dealing with the legal issues. If you are
able to release integration builds publically like this to avoid legal issues
then why can't you release a stable build in the same way ?
I am guessing that the integration builds since rc2 release contained the code
that has not be approved yet. Would it not be better to remove the integration
builds from public download and stick with rc2 for now ?
Dave Kelsey
"Yossi Leon"
<yossi@xxxxxxxx>
Sent by: pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
29/03/2007 12:01
Please
respond to
PDT Developers <pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
To
|
<tmo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "PDT
Developers" <pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [pdt-dev] PDT 1.0
|
|
Hi Thomas and Dave,
Since the project is in incubation it’s possible to have IP issues as part
of the build. Once I call it 0.7 it’s like ignoring Eclipse process and
declaring the release by myself which I’m sure is not acceptable by
Eclipse.org.
The latest integration from Feb 26 is the most stable and relevant version.
What do you suggest?
--
Yossi Leon
Product Manager, Development Tools
& PDT Project Leader
yossi@xxxxxxxx http://www.zend.com/ +1-212-645-0040
http://blogs.zend.com/author/yossi/
From: pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Thomas M. Ose
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:49 PM
To: 'PDT Developers'
Subject: RE: [pdt-dev] PDT 1.0
Yossi,
I would have to agree with Dave that we need a base release to bring everyone
to the same playing field, even if it is stable release of the last integration
build and call it 0.7
Thomas M. Ose
Ose Micro Solutions, Inc.
From: pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Dave Kelsey
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:14 AM
To: PDT Developers
Subject: Re: [pdt-dev] PDT 1.0
Yossi, I think you need to release a 0.7 version. Currently there are users on
Rc2, others on various integration builds and I think it would be better to
have a single version that all users download and report on until 1.0 is
delivered. It will be confusing for both users and developers if there are
multiple versions.
Regards
Dave Kelsey
"Yossi Leon" <yossi@xxxxxxxx>
Sent by: pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
28/03/2007
23:01
Please respond
to
PDT Developers <pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
To
|
<pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
[pdt-dev] PDT 1.0
|
|
Hi All,
I would like to share with you the thoughts regarding PDT 1.0 as you can see
below.
If you find any reason not to skip 0.7 and to move forward with 1.0, please let
us know.
Thanks,
--
Yossi Leon
Product Manager, Development Tools
& PDT Project Leader
yossi@xxxxxxxx http://www.zend.com/ +1-212-645-0040
http://blogs.zend.com/author/yossi/
From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Yossi Leon
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:51 AM
To: Tools PMC mailing list
Cc: Sharon Corbett
Subject: [tools-pmc] PDT 1.0
Hi All,
PDT 0.7 was scheduled to be planned for the end February 2007. Due to IP issues
that are now being investigated the release was postponed.
The roadmap is to have PDT 1.0 on September 2007 which contains mainly
stability and few enhancements comparing to PDT 0.7.
I would like to propose not to wait for the IP approval and for the release of
0.7 and to move forward toward 1.0 (without any release of 0.7) and start
providing builds for that version ASAP.
Please let me know if this is acceptable.
Thanks,
--
Yossi Leon
Product Manager, Development Tools
& PDT Project Leader
yossi@xxxxxxxx http://www.zend.com/ +1-212-645-0040
http://blogs.zend.com/author/yossi/
--
Yossi Leon
Product Manager, Development Tools
& PDT Project Leader
yossi@xxxxxxxx http://www.zend.com/ +1-212-645-0040
http://blogs.zend.com/author/yossi/
_______________________________________________
pdt-dev mailing list
pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/pdt-dev
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England
and Wales
with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41,
North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
_______________________________________________
pdt-dev mailing list
pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/pdt-dev
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England
and Wales
with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41,
North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
_______________________________________________
pdt-dev mailing list
pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/pdt-dev
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England
and Wales
with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41,
North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU