Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cdt-dev] Progressing towards 2.0 GA

cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 06/28/2004 09:33:27 AM:

> Hi Doug,
> 
> 
> > On the subject of the 2.0 branch, I guess we should do it as 
> > soon as the 
> > RC build is done on Monday. As we have mentioned, we will be doing 
> > performance work on the parser and that is likely to blow 
> > everything up 
> > right away. The sooner we get started on this the more time 
> > we will have 
> > to recover. We will likely do this work on the 2.0 branch and 
> > merge it 
> > back to head once we're stable again. That'll let the 2.1 guys march 
> > ahead.
> 
> On the subject of parser work, should we not take the reverse approach,
> e.g. do the work on the head and move it to the release branch (2.0.x)
> after?
> This way the 2.0 branch remains stble and shippable?

The work we are planning on doing for the parser is to allow the 2.0 
branch to be shippable. The current parser performance is not acceptable 
from our perspective (see 
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=59468). We're not planning 
on massive architectural changes but it will be disruptive for a couple of 
weeks. Our plan is to return to stability by the end of August (in time 
for 2.0.1?).

> 
> The second question is with the branch itself -- do you want to do the 
> branch, or shall I? Either way works for me...
> 

I can do it. I have to tag the RC1 versions anyway.

> > 
> > An interesting discussion also revolves around the 3.0 work 
> > and where that 
> > would go. Having too many streams will kill us, but I would 
> > love to see 
> > the managed build work march ahead as soon as we can. I'm not 
> > sure we can 
> > get that all done and stable by the end of October, tough.
> 
> Right. Any way we could stage it such that 2.1 becomes a mini-release
> along the way to 3.0 with a subset of the features? This also has the
> benefit of
> getting the new features "out there" and getting some feedback on them
> before
> 3.0.

That's probably the way it has to go. We had talked about not doing short 
releases again but it looks inevitable.

Right now the CDT is being pulled to meet contributing teams product 
delivery schedules. As more parties get involved, this is going to be 
difficult to manage. My feel is that the CDT needs to have a life of its 
own with a regular and predictable schedule, likely tied somewhat to the 
Eclipse schedule. That would help contributing members plan their 
participation and product schedules. Maybe this is an area that the 
Eclipse Foundation planning committee will get involved in.

Thanks!
Doug



Back to the top