On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:29:53AM +0100, Peter Soetens wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 January 2011 21:11:42 Markus Klotzbuecher wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > Thanks for reminding!
> > Best regards
> > Markus
> >
> > The following changes since commit
> > fcd8d0a64c44483a8d4e1a520ad8c7ecd9cd4769:
> >
> > Merge remote branch 'autobuild/master' (2011-01-04 18:46:14 +0100)
> >
> > are available in the git repository at:
> >
> > git://gitorious.org/~markusk/orocos-toolchain/ocl-mk.git lua
> >
> > Markus Klotzbuecher (6):
> > lua: minor doc update
> > lua: improve default array printing
> > lua: update lua-testcomp CMakeLists
> > lua: improve displaying of unknown types
> > lua: fix for showing types which have size field but which are not
> > indexable. lua: update utils.lua
> >
> > lua/doc/MANUAL.org | 2 +-
> > lua/modules/rttlib.lua | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
> > lua/modules/utils.lua | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > lua/testing/CMakeLists.txt | 4 ++--
> > 4 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> You branched off master. I can merge it with master, but not with the 2.2
> branch. Is that fine for you ?

Argh, forgot about that, master would be fine...

Markus

On Tuesday 18 January 2011 15:22:37 S Roderick wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2011, at 09:17 , Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
> > A Dimarts, 18 de gener de 2011, Peter Soetens va escriure:
> >> If you have any patches for the 2.2.1 release of rtt, ocl, orogen,
> >> log4cpp,...
> >
> > just one propose. If we are using log4cpp, but a patched version, and now
> > we have it with cmake, what's about to rename it, so there will not
> > confusion about the original log4cpp and the patched orocos version?
> >
> > Just asking ....
>
> If we think this is necessary, then use branches. I don't think we want to
> stay with the existing autotools approach, even with Peter's patches. It's
> fraught with peril after they commited part of the generated files from an
> autotools run.

I don't agree here. The configure script was committed from a 'release
technical' point of view, not because it is required because of some hacks: I
didn't want to impose autotools on end users, so I included the files which are
also included when you make a tar.gz. Nothing wrong with that. When they need
to be regenerated, they will just do (if autotools is available) and nothing
will break, you'll only have a 'dirty' git index.

I won't touch log4cpp's build system in the 2.2.x series. Any improvements for
master all welcome though.

Peter

A Dimarts, 18 de gener de 2011, S Roderick va escriure:
> On Jan 18, 2011, at 09:17 , Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
> > A Dimarts, 18 de gener de 2011, Peter Soetens va escriure:
> >> If you have any patches for the 2.2.1 release of rtt, ocl, orogen,
> >> log4cpp,...
> >
> > just one propose. If we are using log4cpp, but a patched version, and now
> > we have it with cmake, what's about to rename it, so there will not
> > confusion about the original log4cpp and the patched orocos version?
> >
> > Just asking ....
>
> If we think this is necessary, then use branches. I don't think we want to
> stay with the existing autotools approach, even with Peter's patches. It's
> fraught with peril after they commited part of the generated files from an
> autotools run.
>
> And the "original" log4cpp we use is patched anyway ... :-)
>
> But otherwise, I think it would benefit us to put the cmake patches into
> the official repo. Unless anyone has an issue with this, bar the above ...
> S

well, I'm just saying:

- log4cpp original ---> log4cpp as many distros uses it.
- log4cpp + orocos patches + cmake patches -> new name

Leo