Right now only f77. f95 is one of the future options I'm thinkng of.
Feel free to open a ticket, but I won't forget it anyway. It is mainly a
matter of proper line wrapping.
cheers,
Toon
Ondrej Certik wrote:
Thanks! Sorry for the late reply.
Is this using f77, or f95 syntax?
Ondrej
On Fri
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
> Ondrej,
>
>> The tests seem to run fine. Only I'll try to rebase it, it will make
>> it easier to review. There are some conflicts, that I'll try to fix.
>
> I am a little surprised there were conflicts. I pulled from upstream
> and resolve
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Toon Verstraelen
wrote:
> Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Aaron S. Meurer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am testing your branch now. I also left some comments on your github.
>>>
>>> Does the test_sage patch require sage to test? If it does, I
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Toon Verstraelen
wrote:
> Right now only f77. f95 is one of the future options I'm thinkng of. Feel
> free to open a ticket, but I won't forget it anyway. It is mainly a matter
> of proper line wrapping.
Yes. f77 is fine, it should work in f95 too, doesn't it?
O
Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Toon Verstraelen
wrote:
Right now only f77. f95 is one of the future options I'm thinkng of. Feel
free to open a ticket, but I won't forget it anyway. It is mainly a matter
of proper line wrapping.
Yes. f77 is fine, it should work in f95
Ondrej,
> I just don't like the way you resolved them. Seems like you were
> merging branches, which both contained some of your patches and in
> general it was a big mess. I fixed all of that and pushed things here:
Yes, I think I know what happened and I am not surprised that I made a
mess. S
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Brian Granger wrote:
> Ondrej,
>
>> I just don't like the way you resolved them. Seems like you were
>> merging branches, which both contained some of your patches and in
>> general it was a big mess. I fixed all of that and pushed things here:
>
> Yes, I think I
Thanks!
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Brian Granger
> wrote:
>> Ondrej,
>>
>>> I just don't like the way you resolved them. Seems like you were
>>> merging branches, which both contained some of your patches and in
>>> general it was
2010/3/25 Christian Muise
> Yeah, I also prefer branches, it's trivial to push and pull. The patch
>> is +1 from me, I pushed it in. Thanks!
>
>
> Woot! Thanks guys.
>
> I had a number of git questions, but all has been cleared up via IRC.
> Next patch will be much smoother.
>
> Cheers
>
Di
It did. The branch was the combination of the two patches that made it to
this list with git-email, plus an extra test case that you had suggested.
Cheers
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Vinzent Steinberg <
vinzent.steinb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 2010/3/25 Christian Muise
>
> Yeah, I also
10 matches
Mail list logo