Chris, Great to see 2.012_01. I think we all look forward to hearing your idea to improve the flow of PDL releases.
I also think Zaki's idea of him getting co-maint for PDL is a good one, and should be discussed. What do others think? Best regards, Ed -----Original Message----- From: Zakariyya Mughal Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 6:00 PM To: Chris Marshall Cc: pdl-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Pdl-devel] Code review request for the branches `unmerged-to-master-drop-2.011_01` and `sf390` On 2015-07-28 at 12:51:48 -0400, Chris Marshall wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Zakariyya Mughal <zaki.mug...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I know we're all busy, but if the code just sits in a branch, it isn't > > being tested and that increases the risk of failures later down the > > road. > > > > Per my previous response, the delays were due to sf.net outage > and lack of communication on my part. I thought we had already > agreed to the sf390 merge in #pdl but your emails seem to suggest > not. > > I'd like to get these changes out at least in the form of a dev release. > > That way all interested parties can get access to fixes and we can get > > feedback quickly. > > > > Yes, that is the idea. > > > > I would like to request co-maint so that I can push more frequent dev > > releases. This is the same cycle that Perl5 goes through > > <http://perl5.git.perl.org/perl.git/tags>. The frequent releases of Perl > > release candidates are made to avoid having the next release of Perl5 > > breaking all of CPAN. > > > > As mentioned on #pdl, I think I may have an idea to improve > the flow of PDL releases without breaking PDL for new users. > At the moment, we're in a holding pattern for the final sf390 > merge to push a dev release. > Sounds good to me! I will merge it in in a few hours and will let you know when it is good to go. Regards, - Zaki Mughal > > > > > Also, it will become difficult to handle all the new dists post-split if > > quick dev releases can not be released and tested. > > > > Agreed. This is important and why the plan to spin out > the non-intrinsic parts of the current PDL distribution into > separate module distributions. > > It seems to me that the current git approach generates some > of these problems because it does not allow for rapid development > while maintaining stability. This awkwardness should still be > mitigated by moving to the smaller PDL Core + External modules. > > Cheers, > Chris > > > > Regards, > > - Zaki Mughal > > > > On 2015-07-27 at 15:27:29 -0500, Zakariyya Mughal wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > > > I was wondering if I could get a code review on these two branches: > > > > > > - unmerged-to-master-drop-2.011_01 < > > https://github.com/PDLPorters/pdl/pull/123> > > > - sf390 <https://github.com/PDLPorters/pdl/pull/128> > > > > > > You can comment directly on the diff on GitHub if you see anything > > > that > > > needs work. > > > > > > I'm trying to keep the momentum between releases going so that we can > > > launch into the split very soon. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > - Zaki Mughal > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > > pdl-devel mailing list > > pdl-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pdl-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ pdl-devel mailing list pdl-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pdl-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ pdl-devel mailing list pdl-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pdl-devel
