Sounds like we would want separate repositories for the bindings and clients then, no?
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Chetan Surpur <[email protected]> wrote: > If clients are defined as separate applications that use the NuPIC core, > then there very well may be many different applications that use the Python > bindings, for example. > On Jan 23, 2014 9:51 AM, "Jeff Fohl" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> How likely is there going to be a desire for multiple clients for a given >> binding? >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Matthew Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Matt Keith <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 1. I would vote for separate repos for each language binding. This >>>> would allow a user to just get the core and the code they need for their >>>> project without getting bogged down in code churn from work on another >>>> binding. >>>> >>> >>> I think you misunderstood the original question. I definitely want >>> different repos for each binding. My question was do we have yet another >>> repo for a client that uses the bindings repo. >>> >>> Should there be: >>> >>> nupic-core <-- python-bindings <-- python-client >>> >>> Or simply: >>> >>> nupic-core <-- python-client (includes bindings) >>> >>> >>> --------- >>> Matt Taylor >>> OS Community Flag-Bearer >>> Numenta >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nupic mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nupic mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org >> >> > _______________________________________________ > nupic mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org > >
_______________________________________________ nupic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org
