I discussed a while back with Peter the possibility that the toolchain
development, which is currently done primarily on Rock repositories,
would actually be done on the orocos toolchain's repositories.
While there is no problem for Rock's master and next flavors (master is
current dev and next is not used by the orocos toolchain), I fear that
it becomes more problematic for stable, since rock and orocos-toolchain
do not have synchronized release plans. I.e., stable would be updated
from master "out-of-sync".
I don't really know what is the best/more practical option there ...
Suggestions ?
On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stabl
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain [dot] joyeux [..] ...>wrote:
> I discussed a while back with Peter the possibility that the toolchain
> development, which is currently done primarily on Rock repositories,
> would actually be done on the orocos toolchain's repositories.
>
> While there is no problem for Rock's master and next flavors (master is
> current dev and next is not used by the orocos toolchain), I fear that
> it becomes more problematic for stable, since rock and orocos-toolchain
> do not have synchronized release plans. I.e., stable would be updated
> from master "out-of-sync".
>
> I don't really know what is the best/more practical option there ...
> Suggestions ?
>
I think we can merge both without disturbing 99% of the users. I think this
is a reasonable estimate of the current usage patterns:
Users using Orocos Toolchain
- master: few, mainly for having specific feature branch
- stable: fewer, I never got complaints for not updating this branch and
never had reports of users using this branch
- toolchain-2.X : most used, also due to the bootstrap scripts using this
- fuerte/groovy/... : used by the ROS build system
So if we drop current stable and use rock's stable+semantics instead, I
think it will actually be an improvement.
The only thing we'd need to take care of is then is when to do a '+1'
version and if this does not break users using 'stable'.
Peter
On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stabl
On 05/16/2013 04:55 PM, Peter Soetens wrote:
> So if we drop current stable and use rock's stable+semantics instead,
> I think it will actually be an improvement.
>
> The only thing we'd need to take care of is then is when to do a '+1'
> version and if this does not break users using 'stable'.
Next question: when to do this ? Before or after 2.7.
In principle, I'm having a problem with pushing all our changes to the
orocos toolchain since this is not tested in the OCL-based workflow.
On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stabl
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain [dot] joyeux [..] ...>wrote:
> On 05/16/2013 04:55 PM, Peter Soetens wrote:
> > So if we drop current stable and use rock's stable+semantics instead,
> > I think it will actually be an improvement.
> >
> > The only thing we'd need to take care of is then is when to do a '+1'
> > version and if this does not break users using 'stable'.
> Next question: when to do this ? Before or after 2.7.
>
during/with 2.7
>
> In principle, I'm having a problem with pushing all our changes to the
> orocos toolchain since this is not tested in the OCL-based workflow.
>
We can merge everything on master and than test it before we release 2.7...?
Peter
On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stabl
On 05/27/2013 12:13 AM, Peter Soetens wrote:
>
> In principle, I'm having a problem with pushing all our changes to the
> orocos toolchain since this is not tested in the OCL-based workflow.
>
>
> We can merge everything on master and than test it before we release
> 2.7...?
If you feel confident about it, then I'm fine with that. Will merge today.
On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stabl
First issue: orocos/stable and autobuild/stable have diverged. I
obviously don't want to update Rock's stable/next with code that did not
get tested within the Rock workflow.
Since we, so far, talked about having next/stable become the 'rock'
branches, would you be OK with me force-pushing Rock's stable to
orocos-toolchain's stable ? In the long run, we'll use the same branches
so we will indeed converge ...
Sylvain
On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stabl
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain [dot] joyeux [..] ...>wrote:
> First issue: orocos/stable and autobuild/stable have diverged. I
> obviously don't want to update Rock's stable/next with code that did not
> get tested within the Rock workflow.
>
> Since we, so far, talked about having next/stable become the 'rock'
> branches, would you be OK with me force-pushing Rock's stable to
> orocos-toolchain's stable ? In the long run, we'll use the same branches
> so we will indeed converge ...
>
No problem, but we'd better announce it on orocos-users as well.
Peter
On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stabl
On 05/27/2013 10:01 PM, Peter Soetens wrote:
> No problem, but we'd better announce it on orocos-users as well.
OK, so:
- sent the email about stable to orocos-users
- merged rock master with orocos-toolchain master and pushed to
orocos-toolchain
- pushed rock next to orocos-toolchain next
I will switch Rock's repositories to the orocos-toolchain one after the
next Rock merge window (which is supposed to be next week, but might be
postponed two weeks)
I will force-push Rock stable to orocos-toolchain stable at the same
time, unless some orocos users have reported big issues.
On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stabl
A Dilluns, 27 de maig de 2013, Peter Soetens va escriure:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Sylvain Joyeux
<sylvain [dot] joyeux [..] ...>wrote:
> > First issue: orocos/stable and autobuild/stable have diverged. I
> > obviously don't want to update Rock's stable/next with code that did not
> > get tested within the Rock workflow.
> >
> > Since we, so far, talked about having next/stable become the 'rock'
> > branches, would you be OK with me force-pushing Rock's stable to
> > orocos-toolchain's stable ? In the long run, we'll use the same branches
> > so we will indeed converge ...
>
> No problem, but we'd better announce it on orocos-users as well.
Peter, Sylvain,
if the debian directory of rtt, typelib, utilmm, and ocl are not used, please
could you rename it?
I'm working on debianize orocos-toolchain and put in on debian under the
debian-science group and these directories could make me collisions. If nobody
are using it, maybe it could be a good idea for 2.7 rename it.
Also, I have asked it before but no answer, if orocos developers maintains a
fork of log4cpp and log4cpp is in debian and ubuntu, please could you think
seriously to change the name?
If you change it, it could be easy to put it in debian/ubuntu ....
Thanks in advance,
Regards,
Leo
On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stabl
Hi Leo,
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
<leopold [dot] palomo [..] ...> wrote:
> A Dilluns, 27 de maig de 2013, Peter Soetens va escriure:
>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Sylvain Joyeux
> <sylvain [dot] joyeux [..] ...>wrote:
>> > First issue: orocos/stable and autobuild/stable have diverged. I
>> > obviously don't want to update Rock's stable/next with code that did not
>> > get tested within the Rock workflow.
>> >
>> > Since we, so far, talked about having next/stable become the 'rock'
>> > branches, would you be OK with me force-pushing Rock's stable to
>> > orocos-toolchain's stable ? In the long run, we'll use the same branches
>> > so we will indeed converge ...
>>
>> No problem, but we'd better announce it on orocos-users as well.
>
> Peter, Sylvain,
>
> if the debian directory of rtt, typelib, utilmm, and ocl are not used, please
> could you rename it?
>
> I'm working on debianize orocos-toolchain and put in on debian under the
> debian-science group and these directories could make me collisions. If nobody
> are using it, maybe it could be a good idea for 2.7 rename it.
It's true that it's no longer frequently used, but why don't you use
it yourself ?
It was tuned to create packages for xenomai and gnulinux...
>
> Also, I have asked it before but no answer, if orocos developers maintains a
> fork of log4cpp and log4cpp is in debian and ubuntu, please could you think
> seriously to change the name?
It's hardly a fork, it's the only maintained version, so our version
should have a higher
version number than the Debian/Ubuntu version in a sense...
>
> If you change it, it could be easy to put it in debian/ubuntu ....
>
Peter
On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stabl
Hi Peter,
A Dimarts, 28 de maig de 2013, Peter Soetens va escriure:
> Hi Leo,
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
> <leopold [dot] palomo [..] ...> wrote:
> > A Dilluns, 27 de maig de 2013, Peter Soetens va escriure:
> >> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Sylvain Joyeux
> > <sylvain [dot] joyeux [..] ...>wrote:
> >> > First issue: orocos/stable and autobuild/stable have diverged. I
> >> > obviously don't want to update Rock's stable/next with code that did
not
> >> > get tested within the Rock workflow.
> >> >
> >> > Since we, so far, talked about having next/stable become the 'rock'
> >> > branches, would you be OK with me force-pushing Rock's stable to
> >> > orocos-toolchain's stable ? In the long run, we'll use the same
branches
> >> > so we will indeed converge ...
> >>
> >> No problem, but we'd better announce it on orocos-users as well.
> >
> > Peter, Sylvain,
> >
> > if the debian directory of rtt, typelib, utilmm, and ocl are not used,
please
> > could you rename it?
> >
> > I'm working on debianize orocos-toolchain and put in on debian under the
> > debian-science group and these directories could make me collisions. If
nobody
> > are using it, maybe it could be a good idea for 2.7 rename it.
>
> It's true that it's no longer frequently used, but why don't you use
> it yourself ?
> It was tuned to create packages for xenomai and gnulinux...
I know, and I have used it a lot. And Sylvain did a good job too. I can do it,
but AFAIK the idea is to make a git under debian-science tree.
I'm not an expert of git, but do you know if it's possible to create a git
repo remote and then sync theses directories to the official of orocos?
If yes, then I create this repos and after my job is done I ask a push of
these to the gitorious .
> >
> > Also, I have asked it before but no answer, if orocos developers maintains
a
> > fork of log4cpp and log4cpp is in debian and ubuntu, please could you
think
> > seriously to change the name?
>
> It's hardly a fork, it's the only maintained version, so our version
> should have a higher
> version number than the Debian/Ubuntu version in a sense...
I don't agree. Log4cpp has a debian package and maintained. Orocos team made a
fork and IMHO should change the name.
Looking on the project, they have changes last year (2012-10-15 18:48 by
sanchouss_) so, maybe it could be interested join the two forks, or separate
it. Another question should be if the log4ccp developers would like to add the
forked branch. Probably they didn't know about it.
Regards,
Leo
On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stabl
On May 28, 2013, at 07:42 , Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> A Dimarts, 28 de maig de 2013, Peter Soetens va escriure:
>> Hi Leo,
>>
>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
>> <leopold [dot] palomo [..] ...> wrote:
>>> A Dilluns, 27 de maig de 2013, Peter Soetens va escriure:
>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Sylvain Joyeux
>>> <sylvain [dot] joyeux [..] ...>wrote:
>>>>> First issue: orocos/stable and autobuild/stable have diverged. I
>>>>> obviously don't want to update Rock's stable/next with code that did
> not
>>>>> get tested within the Rock workflow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we, so far, talked about having next/stable become the 'rock'
>>>>> branches, would you be OK with me force-pushing Rock's stable to
>>>>> orocos-toolchain's stable ? In the long run, we'll use the same
> branches
>>>>> so we will indeed converge ...
>>>>
>>>> No problem, but we'd better announce it on orocos-users as well.
>>>
>>> Peter, Sylvain,
>>>
>>> if the debian directory of rtt, typelib, utilmm, and ocl are not used,
> please
>>> could you rename it?
>>>
>>> I'm working on debianize orocos-toolchain and put in on debian under the
>>> debian-science group and these directories could make me collisions. If
> nobody
>>> are using it, maybe it could be a good idea for 2.7 rename it.
>>
>> It's true that it's no longer frequently used, but why don't you use
>> it yourself ?
>> It was tuned to create packages for xenomai and gnulinux...
>
> I know, and I have used it a lot. And Sylvain did a good job too. I can do it,
> but AFAIK the idea is to make a git under debian-science tree.
>
> I'm not an expert of git, but do you know if it's possible to create a git
> repo remote and then sync theses directories to the official of orocos?
>
> If yes, then I create this repos and after my job is done I ask a push of
> these to the gitorious .
If I understand what you're asking, the model is usually for you to create a repo in github/gitorious, request a merge to Orocos official, and then the Orocos maintainers can pull your repo and decide what/how/when to merge.
>>> Also, I have asked it before but no answer, if orocos developers maintains
> a
>>> fork of log4cpp and log4cpp is in debian and ubuntu, please could you
> think
>>> seriously to change the name?
>>
>> It's hardly a fork, it's the only maintained version, so our version
>> should have a higher
>> version number than the Debian/Ubuntu version in a sense...
>
>
> I don't agree. Log4cpp has a debian package and maintained. Orocos team made a
> fork and IMHO should change the name.
At the time we forked, development on log4cpp had effectively ceased. That has changed slightly since, but it's still barely maintained.
> Looking on the project, they have changes last year (2012-10-15 18:48 by
> sanchouss_) so, maybe it could be interested join the two forks, or separate
> it. Another question should be if the log4ccp developers would like to add the
> forked branch. Probably they didn't know about it.
The developers do know about it, and weren't particularly interested in merging it when we added the features needed to support realtime operations. It is definitely worth us updating from them; I've looked a couple of times and haven't seen any significant reason to merge with what little development they've done. It's probably worth another look.
HTH
S
On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stabl
A Dimarts, 28 de maig de 2013, S Roderick va escriure:
[...]
> > I'm not an expert of git, but do you know if it's possible to create a git
> > repo remote and then sync theses directories to the official of orocos?
> >
> > If yes, then I create this repos and after my job is done I ask a push of
> > these to the gitorious .
>
> If I understand what you're asking, the model is usually for you to create a
repo in github/gitorious, request a merge to Orocos official, and then the
Orocos maintainers can pull your repo and decide what/how/when to merge.
Ok, must be in gitorious or could be in another public place?
> >>> Also, I have asked it before but no answer, if orocos developers
maintains
> > a
> >>> fork of log4cpp and log4cpp is in debian and ubuntu, please could you
> > think
> >>> seriously to change the name?
> >>
> >> It's hardly a fork, it's the only maintained version, so our version
> >> should have a higher
> >> version number than the Debian/Ubuntu version in a sense...
> >
> >
> > I don't agree. Log4cpp has a debian package and maintained. Orocos team
made a
> > fork and IMHO should change the name.
>
> At the time we forked, development on log4cpp had effectively ceased. That
has changed slightly since, but it's still barely maintained.
>
> > Looking on the project, they have changes last year (2012-10-15 18:48 by
> > sanchouss_) so, maybe it could be interested join the two forks, or
separate
> > it. Another question should be if the log4ccp developers would like to add
the
> > forked branch. Probably they didn't know about it.
>
> The developers do know about it, and weren't particularly interested in
merging it when we added the features needed to support realtime operations.
It is definitely worth us updating from them; I've looked a couple of times
and haven't seen any significant reason to merge with what little development
they've done. It's probably worth another look.
Ok,
IMHO if the log4cpp developers doesn't show any interest I would rename the
project, clean a bit (all the autotools stuff) the sources and would continue
as another subproject of toolchain. Then I could package it, independently of
what the original authors / packagers done.
Regards,
Leo
>
> HTH
> S
On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stabl
Hi Leo,
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
<leopold [dot] palomo [..] ...> wrote:
> A Dimarts, 28 de maig de 2013, S Roderick va escriure:
> [...]
>> > I'm not an expert of git, but do you know if it's possible to create a git
>> > repo remote and then sync theses directories to the official of orocos?
>> >
>> > If yes, then I create this repos and after my job is done I ask a push of
>> > these to the gitorious .
>>
>> If I understand what you're asking, the model is usually for you to create a
> repo in github/gitorious, request a merge to Orocos official, and then the
> Orocos maintainers can pull your repo and decide what/how/when to merge.
>
> Ok, must be in gitorious or could be in another public place?
>
>> >>> Also, I have asked it before but no answer, if orocos developers
> maintains
>> > a
>> >>> fork of log4cpp and log4cpp is in debian and ubuntu, please could you
>> > think
>> >>> seriously to change the name?
>> >>
>> >> It's hardly a fork, it's the only maintained version, so our version
>> >> should have a higher
>> >> version number than the Debian/Ubuntu version in a sense...
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't agree. Log4cpp has a debian package and maintained. Orocos team
> made a
>> > fork and IMHO should change the name.
>>
>> At the time we forked, development on log4cpp had effectively ceased. That
> has changed slightly since, but it's still barely maintained.
>>
>> > Looking on the project, they have changes last year (2012-10-15 18:48 by
>> > sanchouss_) so, maybe it could be interested join the two forks, or
> separate
>> > it. Another question should be if the log4ccp developers would like to add
> the
>> > forked branch. Probably they didn't know about it.
>>
>> The developers do know about it, and weren't particularly interested in
> merging it when we added the features needed to support realtime operations.
> It is definitely worth us updating from them; I've looked a couple of times
> and haven't seen any significant reason to merge with what little development
> they've done. It's probably worth another look.
>
> Ok,
>
> IMHO if the log4cpp developers doesn't show any interest I would rename the
> project, clean a bit (all the autotools stuff) the sources and would continue
> as another subproject of toolchain. Then I could package it, independently of
> what the original authors / packagers done.
Many hands make light work, so if you want to pull this, it's fine for me.
Renaming is mostly an internal matter to the toolchain anyway.
Can't we just name it log4cpp2 and install headers/libs accordingly ?
Peter
On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stabl
A Dimecres, 29 de maig de 2013, Peter Soetens va escriure:
> Hi Leo,
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
> <leopold [dot] palomo [..] ...> wrote:
> > A Dimarts, 28 de maig de 2013, S Roderick va escriure:
> > [...]
> >> > I'm not an expert of git, but do you know if it's possible to create a
git
> >> > repo remote and then sync theses directories to the official of orocos?
> >> >
> >> > If yes, then I create this repos and after my job is done I ask a push
of
> >> > these to the gitorious .
> >>
> >> If I understand what you're asking, the model is usually for you to
create a
> > repo in github/gitorious, request a merge to Orocos official, and then the
> > Orocos maintainers can pull your repo and decide what/how/when to merge.
> >
> > Ok, must be in gitorious or could be in another public place?
> >
> >> >>> Also, I have asked it before but no answer, if orocos developers
> > maintains
> >> > a
> >> >>> fork of log4cpp and log4cpp is in debian and ubuntu, please could you
> >> > think
> >> >>> seriously to change the name?
> >> >>
> >> >> It's hardly a fork, it's the only maintained version, so our version
> >> >> should have a higher
> >> >> version number than the Debian/Ubuntu version in a sense...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I don't agree. Log4cpp has a debian package and maintained. Orocos team
> > made a
> >> > fork and IMHO should change the name.
> >>
> >> At the time we forked, development on log4cpp had effectively ceased.
That
> > has changed slightly since, but it's still barely maintained.
> >>
> >> > Looking on the project, they have changes last year (2012-10-15 18:48
by
> >> > sanchouss_) so, maybe it could be interested join the two forks, or
> > separate
> >> > it. Another question should be if the log4ccp developers would like to
add
> > the
> >> > forked branch. Probably they didn't know about it.
> >>
> >> The developers do know about it, and weren't particularly interested in
> > merging it when we added the features needed to support realtime
operations.
> > It is definitely worth us updating from them; I've looked a couple of
times
> > and haven't seen any significant reason to merge with what little
development
> > they've done. It's probably worth another look.
> >
> > Ok,
> >
> > IMHO if the log4cpp developers doesn't show any interest I would rename
the
> > project, clean a bit (all the autotools stuff) the sources and would
continue
> > as another subproject of toolchain. Then I could package it, independently
of
> > what the original authors / packagers done.
>
> Many hands make light work, so if you want to pull this, it's fine for me.
> Renaming is mostly an internal matter to the toolchain anyway.
ok, I take the challenge. How many time do I have to do it? Could be done
before 2.7?
> Can't we just name it log4cpp2 and install headers/libs accordingly ?
some proposes:
- olog4cpp (orocos log ....)
- log4cpprt (log 4 cpp real time)
- l4cpprt (...)
- rtl4cpp
.....
but log4cpp2 is not very original .... sorry ... :-(
Leo
> Peter
>
On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stabl
On May 29, 2013, at 06:09 , Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
> A Dimecres, 29 de maig de 2013, Peter Soetens va escriure:
>> Hi Leo,
>>
>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
>> <leopold [dot] palomo [..] ...> wrote:
>>> A Dimarts, 28 de maig de 2013, S Roderick va escriure:
>>> [...]
>>>>> I'm not an expert of git, but do you know if it's possible to create a
> git
>>>>> repo remote and then sync theses directories to the official of orocos?
>>>>>
>>>>> If yes, then I create this repos and after my job is done I ask a push
> of
>>>>> these to the gitorious .
>>>>
>>>> If I understand what you're asking, the model is usually for you to
> create a
>>> repo in github/gitorious, request a merge to Orocos official, and then the
>>> Orocos maintainers can pull your repo and decide what/how/when to merge.
>>>
>>> Ok, must be in gitorious or could be in another public place?
>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I have asked it before but no answer, if orocos developers
>>> maintains
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> fork of log4cpp and log4cpp is in debian and ubuntu, please could you
>>>>> think
>>>>>>> seriously to change the name?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's hardly a fork, it's the only maintained version, so our version
>>>>>> should have a higher
>>>>>> version number than the Debian/Ubuntu version in a sense...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't agree. Log4cpp has a debian package and maintained. Orocos team
>>> made a
>>>>> fork and IMHO should change the name.
>>>>
>>>> At the time we forked, development on log4cpp had effectively ceased.
> That
>>> has changed slightly since, but it's still barely maintained.
>>>>
>>>>> Looking on the project, they have changes last year (2012-10-15 18:48
> by
>>>>> sanchouss_) so, maybe it could be interested join the two forks, or
>>> separate
>>>>> it. Another question should be if the log4ccp developers would like to
> add
>>> the
>>>>> forked branch. Probably they didn't know about it.
>>>>
>>>> The developers do know about it, and weren't particularly interested in
>>> merging it when we added the features needed to support realtime
> operations.
>>> It is definitely worth us updating from them; I've looked a couple of
> times
>>> and haven't seen any significant reason to merge with what little
> development
>>> they've done. It's probably worth another look.
>>>
>>> Ok,
>>>
>>> IMHO if the log4cpp developers doesn't show any interest I would rename
> the
>>> project, clean a bit (all the autotools stuff) the sources and would
> continue
>>> as another subproject of toolchain. Then I could package it, independently
> of
>>> what the original authors / packagers done.
>>
>> Many hands make light work, so if you want to pull this, it's fine for me.
>> Renaming is mostly an internal matter to the toolchain anyway.
>
> ok, I take the challenge. How many time do I have to do it? Could be done
> before 2.7?
>
>> Can't we just name it log4cpp2 and install headers/libs accordingly ?
>
> some proposes:
>
> - olog4cpp (orocos log ....)
> - log4cpprt (log 4 cpp real time)
> - l4cpprt (...)
> - rtl4cpp
> .....
>
> but log4cpp2 is not very original .... sorry ... :-(
Before we take action, why don't we go back to upstream and let them know our plans. Maybe they're willing to merge now?
S
On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stabl
A Dijous, 30 de maig de 2013, Stephen Roderick va escriure:
> On May 29, 2013, at 06:09 , Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
>
> > A Dimecres, 29 de maig de 2013, Peter Soetens va escriure:
> >> Hi Leo,
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
> >> <leopold [dot] palomo [..] ...> wrote:
> >>> A Dimarts, 28 de maig de 2013, S Roderick va escriure:
> >>> [...]
> >>>>> I'm not an expert of git, but do you know if it's possible to create a
> > git
> >>>>> repo remote and then sync theses directories to the official of
orocos?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If yes, then I create this repos and after my job is done I ask a push
> > of
> >>>>> these to the gitorious .
> >>>>
> >>>> If I understand what you're asking, the model is usually for you to
> > create a
> >>> repo in github/gitorious, request a merge to Orocos official, and then
the
> >>> Orocos maintainers can pull your repo and decide what/how/when to merge.
> >>>
> >>> Ok, must be in gitorious or could be in another public place?
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Also, I have asked it before but no answer, if orocos developers
> >>> maintains
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>> fork of log4cpp and log4cpp is in debian and ubuntu, please could
you
> >>>>> think
> >>>>>>> seriously to change the name?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's hardly a fork, it's the only maintained version, so our version
> >>>>>> should have a higher
> >>>>>> version number than the Debian/Ubuntu version in a sense...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't agree. Log4cpp has a debian package and maintained. Orocos
team
> >>> made a
> >>>>> fork and IMHO should change the name.
> >>>>
> >>>> At the time we forked, development on log4cpp had effectively ceased.
> > That
> >>> has changed slightly since, but it's still barely maintained.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Looking on the project, they have changes last year (2012-10-15 18:48
> > by
> >>>>> sanchouss_) so, maybe it could be interested join the two forks, or
> >>> separate
> >>>>> it. Another question should be if the log4ccp developers would like to
> > add
> >>> the
> >>>>> forked branch. Probably they didn't know about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> The developers do know about it, and weren't particularly interested in
> >>> merging it when we added the features needed to support realtime
> > operations.
> >>> It is definitely worth us updating from them; I've looked a couple of
> > times
> >>> and haven't seen any significant reason to merge with what little
> > development
> >>> they've done. It's probably worth another look.
> >>>
> >>> Ok,
> >>>
> >>> IMHO if the log4cpp developers doesn't show any interest I would rename
> > the
> >>> project, clean a bit (all the autotools stuff) the sources and would
> > continue
> >>> as another subproject of toolchain. Then I could package it,
independently
> > of
> >>> what the original authors / packagers done.
> >>
> >> Many hands make light work, so if you want to pull this, it's fine for
me.
> >> Renaming is mostly an internal matter to the toolchain anyway.
> >
> > ok, I take the challenge. How many time do I have to do it? Could be done
> > before 2.7?
> >
> >> Can't we just name it log4cpp2 and install headers/libs accordingly ?
> >
> > some proposes:
> >
> > - olog4cpp (orocos log ....)
> > - log4cpprt (log 4 cpp real time)
> > - l4cpprt (...)
> > - rtl4cpp
> > .....
> >
> > but log4cpp2 is not very original .... sorry ... :-(
>
> Before we take action, why don't we go back to upstream and let them know
our plans. Maybe they're willing to merge now?
to me it's ok, please could some of the "important people" of the orocos
developers make that step?
Leo
On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stabl
On 15 May 2013 17:34, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain [dot] joyeux [..] ...> wrote:
> I discussed a while back with Peter the possibility that the toolchain
> development, which is currently done primarily on Rock repositories,
> would actually be done on the orocos toolchain's repositories.
>
Can you explain what you mean by "on the orocos toolchain's repositories"?
Does that mean in the same Git, or on the same server, or something else?
Geoff
>
> While there is no problem for Rock's master and next flavors (master is
> current dev and next is not used by the orocos toolchain), I fear that
> it becomes more problematic for stable, since rock and orocos-toolchain
> do not have synchronized release plans. I.e., stable would be updated
> from master "out-of-sync".
>
> I don't really know what is the best/more practical option there ...
> Suggestions ?
>
> --
> Sylvain Joyeux (Dr.Ing.)
> Senior Researcher
>
> Space & Security Robotics
> Underwater Robotics
>
> !!! Achtung, neue Telefonnummer!!!
>
> Standort Bremen:
> DFKI GmbH
> Robotics Innovation Center
> Robert-Hooke-Straße 5
> 28359 Bremen, Germany
>
> Phone: +49 (0)421 178-454136
> Fax: +49 (0)421 218-454150
> E-Mail: robotik [..] ...
>
> Weitere Informationen: http://www.dfki.de/robotik
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH
> Firmensitz: Trippstadter Straße 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern
> Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster
> (Vorsitzender) Dr. Walter Olthoff
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
> Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kaiserslautern (HRB 2313)
> USt-Id.Nr.: DE 148646973
> Steuernummer: 19/673/0060/3
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> Orocos-Dev mailing list
> Orocos-Dev [..] ...
> http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev
>
On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stabl
On 05/15/2013 10:47 AM, Geoffrey Biggs wrote:
> On 15 May 2013 17:34, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain [dot] joyeux [..] ...
> <mailto:sylvain [dot] joyeux [..] ...>> wrote:
>
> I discussed a while back with Peter the possibility that the toolchain
> development, which is currently done primarily on Rock repositories,
> would actually be done on the orocos toolchain's repositories.
>
>
> Can you explain what you mean by "on the orocos toolchain's
> repositories"? Does that mean in the same Git, or on the same server,
> or something else?
Same git and branch (e.g. in gitorious.org/orocos-toolchain)
The main work on the toolchain stuff (orogen, typelib) is currently done
on Rock's forks of these repositories and merged back "every once in a
while" on the orocos toolchain.
Sylvain