Re: [cdt-dev] 3.8 vs. 4.2

[Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxx>]

I believe that is the question at hand. From the feedback I've received, a
number of adopters aren't happy with 4.2 and will be releasing their
products based on 3.8. That, of course, implies that the CDT will continue
to use the compat layer.

The next question is when we'll be able to go native and hopefully take
advantage of any new APIs and UI that'll benefit our end users and keep us
evolving to keep up with the competition. Clearly the issues with 4.2 will
need to be resolved. I'll just feel more comfortable when the community
shows plans to make that happen and we can all move forward.

Doug.

On 12-07-05 5:00 PM, "Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>I'm not exactly sure what you meant, but I'm sure that everyone realizes
>that 3.x is now maintenance-only. So I'm pretty sure that the only
>conversation to have is whether CDT uses the compatibility layer or "goes
>native" on 4.x. 
>
>
>Mike Milinkovich
>mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
>+1.613.220.3223
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxx>
>Sender: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 20:22:02
>To: CDT General developers list<cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] 3.8 vs. 4.2
>
>We don't have concrete plans for the next release. My hope as I mentioned
>is to keep it at 8.2. That's independent of whether it's on 4.x or
>continues to support 3.x.
>
>Frankly, I don't see any new big features or rewrite coming to CDT unless
>someone has a surprise. So I don't anticipate us adopting 4.x only
>features.
>
>But the future is very cloudy at the moment and I'm waiting to see how
>things unfold. I am very concerned about the resource profile for the
>Eclipse Platform for one stream, let alone two...
>
>Doug.
>
>On 12-07-05 3:18 PM, "Warren Paul" <Warren.Paul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Thanks Eugene.  Good info.
>>
>>Anyone else have any feedback on 4.2?  Any plans to use it, or other
>>reasons not to?
>>
>>Doug, can you give a little more detail on this comment from the CDT call
>>notes?  "Some debate on 4.x versus 3.x. CDT 8.1 Juno works with both. Not
>>sure we have any choice in Kepler but to adopt 4.x. Which means those
>>issues people are finding will need to be raised as bugs and fixed."
>>
>>Does that mean next summer we'll have a CDT 9.0 that only works with 4.x?
>> I assume maintenance could be performed on 8.x branch and stay
>>compatible with 3.x, but if there really isn't going to be a 3.9...
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Warren
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
>>Behalf Of Eugene Ostroukhov
>>Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:27 AM
>>To: CDT General developers list.
>>Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] 3.8 vs. 4.2
>>
>>I used 4.2 RC as my primary environment for weeks - and once I moved
>>to 3.8 it was such a relief. I would recommend other teams use 4.2 for
>>some time before making the decision - I used it to develop 3.7.x
>>product and it worked well, I used the same workspace for Eclipse
>>3.7.2, 4.2 and 3.8 and found no issues - so it is really simple to
>>give 4.2 a try.
>>
>>In our team, I am advocating against a move to Eclipse4 for our
>>project (we make a CDT-based IDE for Linux and Mac developers).
>>
>>Our product main target platform is Linux and Eclipse4 is outright
>>ugly there (even the classic theme has odd colors here and there). I
>>also see many problems with fast view management (e.g. dragging a fast
>>view is glitchy, shortcuts are reshuffled after the restart, etc) - so
>>I'm really concerned with the basic functionality being that broken
>>after years of development. E4 also seems to be perceivably slower (at
>>least on Ubuntu). Oh, and I'm really not sold on all the new features
>>(our project does not need custom styling and we rely heavily on CDT
>>and Eclipse Platform features that are the same in 3.8 and 4.2)
>>
>>Eclipse 3.8 is really great. As Apple would say "Best Eclipse version
>>released so far".
>>
>>On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Warren Paul <Warren.Paul@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>>> There was a thread a while back on this list discussing whether IDE
>>>vendors
>>> were migrating their products to 3.8 or 4.2.  I looked back in the
>>>archives
>>> several months but could find it.  With Juno now released, we¹re trying
>>>to
>>> decide which platform we should base our next release on.  4.2 makes me
>>> nervous simply because I¹ve seen random comments here and there about
>>>how
>>> unstable the compatibility layer is.  Is anyone not planning to move to
>>>4.2,
>>> and if not, why?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also saw something in a CDT meeting summary about whether CDT should
>>>move
>>> to the new 4.x API¹s rather than using the compatibility layer.  Was
>>>there a
>>> decision made?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Warren
>>>
>>> This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
>>>of the
>>> individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
>>>information
>>> that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt
>>>from
>>> disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work
>>>product.
>>> If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>>>use,
>>> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
>>>strictly
>>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us
>>> immediately by telephone and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or
>>>(ii)
>>> delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
>>the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
>>information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential,
>>and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as
>>attorney work product.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>>hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
>>this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>>communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and (i)
>>destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message
>>immediately if this is an electronic communication.
>>
>>Thank you.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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