| Re: [cdt-dev] 8.5 release |
Ok, but do we really want to drop one or two SR builds to replace them with a non-aligned December build?
For adopters/packagers, it may not be ideal. In our case, we package CDT with other projects into our own
package and we align our releases with the Eclipse releases. My guess is that many do the same.
A December release would not fit in that schedule and may not prove very useful.
What is the release schedule for Momentics?
________________________________________
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Doug Schaefer [cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: August 6, 2014 4:21 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] 8.5 release
Well, I'll challenge the notion that we have to deliver anything on the SRs. There's no requirement for that.
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of Doug SchaeferOn Wednesday, August 6, 2014, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>
> It is true that if we were on our own, a timeline of June-December would seem best.
>
> However, we cannot avoid the SR1 and SR2 releases from the train. With this in mind
>
> our choices are:
>
>
>
> Luna – June 2014
>
> SR1 – Sept 2014 (3 months later)
>
> SR2 – Feb 2015 (5 months later)
>
> Mars – June 2015 (3 months later)
>
>
>
> or
>
>
>
> Luna – June 2014
>
> SR1 – Sept 2014 (3 months later)
>
> CDT Dec release (3 months later)
>
> SR2 – Feb 2015 (2 months later)
>
> Mars – June 2015 (3 months later)
>
>
>
> The value of a December release would then be to release 2 months earlier to the users.
>
> Is that worth the overhead and complexity of having a 4th and non-aligned release?
>
> I personally don’t think so. The users are already getting features 9 months and 4 months
>
> faster than what we used to provide.
>
> Furthermore, it would make the SR2 release so close behind that it would pretty much be useless
>
> (but yet, we’d have to do it anyway).
>
>
>
> So with our current schedule, short features can be provided 3 months after the summer
>
> release, while bigger ones arrive 8 months after the summer release, and we keep the overhead
>
> smaller.
>
> Marc
>
>
>
> P.S. If we were to discuss a floating release time or an almost continuous release cycle, then
>
> things may be different. But if we are to fix a date for a release, might as well coincide with
>
> a release we are doing already.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 2:27 PM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] 8.5 release
>
>
>
> I think so. 6 months is the sweet spot IMHO. A Dec release works. If we get the check for updates working properly, we can release the CDT any time. As long as the C++ IDE points to the right repo we can just update it.
>
> On Wednesday, August 6, 2014, Nathan Ridge <zeratul976@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:zeratul976@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:>>> From: dschaefer@xxxxxxx<mailto:dschaefer@xxxxxxx>
>> The natural middle ground between once a year and three times a year,
>> is twice a year. It wouldn't align exactly with the platform SRs, but the
>> mid-cycle release could still go into SR2.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nate
>>
>> ________________________________
>>> To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 18:08:39 +0000>>> From: cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: [cdt-dev] Fw: 8.5 release
>>>
>>> Try again.
>>>
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 12:07 PM>>> From: cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: Doug Schaefer
>>> Subject: Fw: 8.5 release
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 12:06 PM>>> To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: 8.5 release>>> From: cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>
>>> My phone is having trouble responding to emails from the list.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I think we need to reconsider the 4 month release cycle,
>>> especially the one over the summer. It's too short to do serious
>>> features and if you miss it, it's a long wait still for the next one.
>>>
>>> We can probably figure a way to release the C++ IDE when we want.
>>> Something to think about.
>>>
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 12:06 PM>>> To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: 8.5 release>>> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> To change your delivery options, retrieve your
>>>
>>>
>>> My phone is having trouble responding to emails from the list.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I think we need to reconsider the 4 month release cycle,
>>> especially the one over the summer. It's too short to do serious
>>> features and if you miss it, it's a long wait still for the next one.
>>>
>>> We can probably figure a way to release the C++ IDE when we want.
>>> Something to think about.
>>>
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ cdt-dev mailing list
>>> password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit>> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdt-dev mailing list
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev