Re: [cdt-dev] Our Plans Post Helios

[<ken.ryall@xxxxxxxxx>]

John,

That's right, the code on the branch would not be part of any Helios releng
build. It is just a branch that developers could work with.

When we build our tools we would use Helios and the plug-ins from the
edc_2_0 branch. So they would be deployable with Helios but we're not asking
anyone else to do this. They would never be included in a CDT release. I am
not asking for this.

We do not want to do this work in a private fork at Nokia. We want to do it
in the open so we can easily collaborate with others and preview the work.

- Ken

> From: ext John Cortell <rat042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:27:23 +0200
> To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Our Plans Post Helios
> 
> Ken,
> 
> Logistics-wise, this new branch would not be part
> of a Helios releng build, right? After all, how
> can a build build two branches of the same source
> tree? Is is just some branch that individual
> developers could work with? That seems OK (though
> in the back of my head I wonder why this isn't
> just a fork at Nokia--I might not fully
> understand the purpose of it). It seems that's
> harmless enough. What I don't see as doable is
> somehow making a build of that branch deployable
> with Helios. After all, if it isn't going to be
> built as part of Helios, how can we distribute it
> with Helios. There might be some solution to make
> that possible, but it seems to me it would be pretty complicated and messy.
> 
> John
> 
> At 11:16 AM 6/17/2010, ken.ryall@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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