Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] 3.6 SR1 build tag

[Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Ed. I thought this information was pretty clear on our
downloads page off of http://www.eclipse.org/cdt. Please let me know
if there is an improvement I can make there.

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Doug
>
> As a user trying to add CDT to a Modeling EPP, I found the lack of an
> obvious Helios Update Site for CDT that I could download for expansion the
> other side of a firewall very disconcerting, so it mattered to me. Perhaps
> people don't download them because they are really rather hard to find. cf.
> for instance EMF where the Project Page takes you to the Download Page where
> the All in One Update Site is really obvious.
>
>     Regards
>
>         Ed Willink
>
>
> On 06/08/2010 20:10, Doug Schaefer wrote:
>
> I see a lot of teams play with this, but it looks like a lot of effort
> for little value.
>
> With CDT, we just keep our build numbers growing and when we bless one
> as a release build, we copy it over to a release directory on
> downloads. Why bother renaming it? I'm finding by far the most users
> are using p2 off of Helios and some off our own CDT repos anyway. Very
> few people download our builds, especially release builds, so it
> doesn't really matter that much what they're called. The platform is
> different of course since that's what you start with, but I don't
> think it makes too much sense for the other projects to worry about
> this.
>
> Just a pragmatic viewpoint, your mileage may very.
> Doug.
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Daniel Pastore <kpqb38@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Martin,
> your answer does help, but I still have one question: if I just rename the
> M-tagged RC4 to be R-tagged, won't it break this build? (Because of signing
> and internal packages and files that should be renamed too?) Or is this
> 'rename' a new build, but forcing the build ID to be the same as the
> previous RC?
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 13:43, Oberhuber, Martin
> <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> The Platform team has been doing this in the past, for example:
>
> M20100729-1115
> M-3.6.1RC1-201008061115
> ...
> M-3.6.1RC4-201009051115
> R-3.6.1-201009051115
>
> That is, the official build is declared as Release by renaming it.
> Does that help?
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
> direct +43.662.457915.85  fax +43.662.457915.6
>
> ________________________________
> From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel
> Pastore
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 4:30 PM
> To: Cross project issues
> Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] 3.6 SR1 build tag
>
> Hi all,
> Let me use the approaching 3.6 SR1 moment and ask another newbie question:
> should my 3.6 SR1 build be tagged M (as I intend it is for a maintenance
> release) or R (as it is also a formal release)?
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Daniel Pastore
>
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Daniel Pastore
>
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3054 - Release Date: 08/06/10
> 08:37:00
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>
>