Ah, there it is! Thanks for outlining the process.
On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 11:11:31 AM UTC-7, Iain Dunning wrote: > > That is really weird, I have no explanation. If it says updated on 01-20, > its for METADATA (and the last green build for Julia 0.4) as at 2AM EST on > the 20th. Weird... It is up now for the 21st. > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Sean Garborg <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Packages being registered and tagged between the 0.3 run and the 0.4 run >> -- pretty cool! >> >> The package I'm thinking of (Geodesy.jl) was registered and tagged on the >> 19th (merged ~13:00 EST), so maybe the run marked '2015-01-20' was kicked >> off on the 19th at 2AM EST? I don't know if there's an ideal dating scheme, >> but the date of the last METADATA pull (between the 0.3 and 0.4 runs) seems >> like a reasonable upper bound, not that you don't have much more important >> things on your plate :). >> >> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 10:41:29 AM UTC-7, Iain Dunning wrote: >>> >>> Only tagged packages are counted. Also, I have to manually push to the >>> website still, even though PackageEval hasn't had a problem in a long time. >>> I should probably let my baby fly and let it fully automatically run. The >>> date is the date I push it on - the actual run happens at around 2AM EST, >>> which has actually led to packages being run only on 0.4 the first time >>> because they weren't in METADATA when the 0.3 tests were run - a pretty >>> narrow window! >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Sean Garborg <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I think we were over 500 in METADATA last time the pulse was updated. I >>>> just know because I registered a package on the 19th and it wasn't in the >>>> 1/20 status changes. Curious, would that be due to METADATA being updated >>>> manually, or the batch taking ~12 hours or so, or the batch needing to be >>>> restarted/resumed sometimes, or the date representing more of a post date >>>> than a run date? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 2:08:48 PM UTC-7, Luthaf wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If you do accept unfinished and very alpha package, I can submit one >>>>> right now ... >>>>> >>>>> It won't be very usable, but I am wondering about how finished should >>>>> be a package when submitted to METADATA. >>>>> >>>>> Viral Shah a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> I wonder what the 500th package will be. >>>>> >>>>> -viral >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 9:02:45 PM UTC+5:30, Iain Dunning >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Just noticed on http://pkg.julialang.org/pulse.html that we are at >>>>>> 499 registered packages with at least one version tagged that are Julia >>>>>> 0.4-dev compatible (493 on Julia 0.3). >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks to all the package developers for their efforts in growing the >>>>>> Julia package ecosystem! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Iain Dunning* >>> PhD Candidate >>> <http://orc.scripts.mit.edu/people/student.php?name=idunning> / MIT >>> Operations Research Center <http://web.mit.edu/orc/www/> >>> http://iaindunning.com / http://juliaopt.org >>> >> > > > -- > *Iain Dunning* > PhD Candidate > <http://orc.scripts.mit.edu/people/student.php?name=idunning> / MIT > Operations Research Center <http://web.mit.edu/orc/www/> > http://iaindunning.com / http://juliaopt.org >
