Yep that was it, thanks! Sorry to sidetrack the conversation. a d a m
On September 26, 2014 at 11:23:21 AM, Jameson Nash ([email protected]) wrote: https://github.com/Rory-Finnegan/Playground.jl ? On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Adam R. Smith <[email protected]> wrote: Steve: that’s a useful setup! Somebody was also making a Julia equivalent for python’s virtualenv, but I can’t remember the name so I can’t find it now. Using aliases like yours, you could associate a particular project with a particular julia version with a virtualenv. I wish I could remember the name. a d a m On September 26, 2014 at 11:12:22 AM, Steve Kelly ([email protected]) wrote: This is how I set up my environment to stay involved: julia -> master julia3 -> release-0.3 julia4on3-> use 0.4 packages on julia3 (this is helpful since I like to develop in the v0.4 directory) julia-multi -> run something with 0.4 packages on julia and julia3 (I normally only use this with 'julia-multi ./test/runtests.jl') I've put the scripts I use for the last two on Github: https://github.com/sjkelly/julia_scripts These four commands give me the satisfaction of seeing stuff break, and also providing comfort when there are deadlines to meet :P. On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Stefan Karpinski <[email protected]> wrote: It's a bit odd for there to be simultaneous complaints about 0.4 being unstable (ie under rapid development) and not going anywhere. It's been, what, 13 years since the plans to release Perl 6 were announced? Seems a bit early to worry about that kind of problem a couple of months after the last significant release of Julia. If 0.4 isn't out by 2020 we can start to worry. On Sep 26, 2014, at 10:12 AM, John Myles White <[email protected]> wrote: Hans, The tone of your e-mail is a little odd in my opinion. It seems to imply distrust and even possibly anger for a project that would be substantially better served by participating actively in the issue discussions that Tim Holy discussed. I don't think anyone who's following 0.4's progress would ever believe that 0.4 is not on track. -- John On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:30 AM, Hans W Borchers <[email protected]> wrote: Ivar, thanks for this clarification; I was really under the impression that -- like for Perl and other projects -- I might never ever again hear from a Julia 0.4 version. A question I asked got buried in another thread and never answered, so I'd like to repeat it here: Will the NEWS.md file immediately document the (disruptive or non-disruptive) changes? That would be very helpful, even if the change is withdrawn later on. Also, every NEWS entry could include a date to make it easier to follow the development. By the way, I am a bit worried about some of the names that seem to come up in a next version of Julia. For example, 'Nullable' or 'NullableArray' sound strange for me in a technical computing environment. On Friday, September 26, 2014 9:19:37 AM UTC+2, Ivar Nesje wrote: I think this is a too strong statement. There are definitely happening a lot on the master (0.4-dev) branch, but it should be quite usable even without reading the majority of Github issues. The more users we have, the earlier concerns is raised, and the earlier we can fix them and prepare for the final release. You should definitely avoid master on any project with a deadline tough.
