Hi Chris,
Nice work in merging the MR so quickly, and closing it and the previous one.
Suggest dev-releasing this to see where we're at.
I still have a few tweaks, but I think it's nearly there. I want to get it
reliably parallel-building in its current state - this works with EUMM git
latest on Windows, (ran through 3 times with gmake -j8), but not on Linux,
so there will be tweaks needed.
Just looking at current remaining non-master branches, I see two groups:
Legitimate topic branches:
remotes/upstream/core-cleanup
remotes/upstream/longlong-double-fix
- please keep rebasing and force-pushing these, guys - suggest one person is
nominated so you don't duplicate effort.
Historical excrescences:
remotes/upstream/cpan_2.006_release
remotes/upstream/cpan_2.007_04
remotes/upstream/cpan_2.007_release
remotes/upstream/release_2.4.10
- I want to go back and unify the history so each CPAN version tag
accurately reflects the dev process but is one stream. This will involve one
force-push, one time, with everyone doing a "git pull --rebase". If we do
this, I can guide anyone through it, it's really not scary.
On your other points:
* Inline::Pdlpp docs are fine as is - my work is more relevant for people
writing XS (currently only easy with C, but I'm working on making it
properly easy for C++ too).
* I don't think a commit filter is necessary, but I could be persuaded.
However, you can't possibly expect me to work on this when I don't have push
access myself.
* Dev doc updates - I will look into this, I'll probably just excerpt from
and link to someone else's words on this.
Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Marshall
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 6:45 PM
To: Ed .
Cc: pdl-porters
Subject: Re: [Pdl-porters] all I want for PDL-2.008 is my two...
Nice to hear from you Ed .-
Post by Ed .Good news about upcoming 2.008.
There are a couple of things the upcoming EUMM will change that will
require little tweaks to the current PDL build system (although mostly
I've made EUMM be back-compatible). Is a sourceforge merge-request the
best method?
A merge request is good. As soon as you are satisfied, we can push
another devel release for CPAN Testers to chew on.
Post by Ed .If you have time, I would be interested if you could expand (in a separate
thread) very briefly why you prefer sourceforge over github.
I don't think discussion of github vs sourceforge is productive for
either of us. Specifically, I would like to spend my time working to
fix some long awaited fixes that I think can now be pushed through. For
you, I think it would be more helpful for PDL development if you could
address the following (my ideas, not a requirement):
1. Update Inline::Pdlpp docs for your new Inline feature support. My
understanding is that it makes things simpler to do, up-to-date docs and
tutorial for the wiki would be nice.
2. Update DEVELOPMENT to include the git rebase work flow. See my post
to the mailing list on this topic at
http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/pipermail//pdl-porters/2015-January/006581.html
for the original query. I think moving to a rebase workflow would
enable developers to work with either the sf.net git directly, or
through the mirror on github that Mithaldu has set up.
3. Tutorial on rebase git workflow and help setting up commit filter to
enforce.
--Chris
Post by Ed .Ed
-----Original Message----- From: Chris Marshall
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 4:06 PM
To: pdl-porters
Subject: [Pdl-porters] all I want for PDL-2.008 is my two...
We're coming up on the end of January and the PDL-2.008 release. If you
have any essential features, fixes, improvements you would like to see
in PDL-2.008, now is the time to wrap them up. I'm working on a few
myself but I'm fine with getting an official PDL-2.008 out this month.
CPAN testers look good and there are some fixes and improvements versus
PDL-2.007 that are worth a broader venue.
--Chris