On 03/30/2014 09:04 PM, Charles Steinkuehler wrote: > On 3/30/2014 7:19 PM, andy pugh wrote: >> On 31 March 2014 00:42, Jeff Epler <jep...@unpythonic.net> >> wrote: >> >>> There are some features that were included by merging feature >>> branches, but not a ton. >> >> It does feel like a pat on the head and a "we will ignore what >> you spent the last year working on" > > No, it's not at all like that. If it was, you wouldn't have > NURBS, joints-axis, universal RTOS support, and Arais-robot's FPGA > motion controller code in mainline for everyone to use.
I dont know what state the NURBS and the FPGA motion controller branches are in, so i can't speak about them. But i've spent the past year or so working on ja and ubc; fixing bugs, adding missing required features, and generally trying to move them towards release readiness. There are well publicized open issues (https://sf.net/p/emc/bugs/search/?q=ubc) that I and others ran into while working on the branch. I think Zultron is working on the ubc issues, but i dont think anyone is working on the ja issues. I get the impression from your email that you're of the opinion that these two branches should have been merged already, the above reason is why i have not yet merged them. I don't know much about the NURBS and FPGA motion controller branches, but again it get the impression that you think they're merge ready. I'd appreciate it if you shared *your* review of those branches. What do they do? Do they accomplish their objectives in a clean way, or do they add technical debt that will make future maintenance more difficult? Do they include updates to the documentation that explain to users how to use the new features? Are the code changes they introduce covered by tests (new or existing)? -- Sebastian Kuzminsky ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
