On Sep 14, 2011, at 11:21 AM, My Th wrote:
>> For 2.3, I'd prefer the latter, but I'm open to the patches for future
>> releases.
>
> Are the patches fine as they are for future releases?
I haven't had a chance to review them completely. I'll let you know.
> What would be the desired behavior
Thanks for the comments!
> > 1) Patch #3311952 adding GRO format
> > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3311952&group_id=40728&atid=428742
>
> Great. Can we have an example file or two?
I uploaded two example files. One is a short trajectory file, the second
is a molecule in periodi
On 14 September 2011 13:52, Geoffrey Hutchison wrote:
>> On second thoughts, I think I'll wait until after the release to sort
>> this out.
>
> So I should revert (or not apply) the parsmarts patch for 2.3.1, correct?
Exactly. I think you've already reverted it on the trunk, so you could
just mer
> On second thoughts, I think I'll wait until after the release to sort
> this out.
So I should revert (or not apply) the parsmarts patch for 2.3.1, correct?
> I'd prefer to see the current code go out the door.
Great, I'll start to merge patches into the 2-3-x branch and we can give some
time
On 13 September 2011 19:51, Geoffrey Hutchison wrote:
>> The patch is correct. It just exposes some bugs in the SMARTS matcher
>> for stereochemistry. I'm 50% through resolving it. Can you hang on
>> another few days and I'll have it sorted?
>
> OK, sounds good.
>
> -Geoff
On second thoughts, I t
