Hi PDL users, As I just mentioned on pdl-devel, I would say PDLA is ready to develop (and run experiments) against. It’s up to date with legacy PDL master, on v2.019101 for both PDLA::Core and PDLA::Rest. There is an experimental single module that has been carved off from the mass – PDLA::IO::HDF. It’s also been brought up to date.
Feel free to fork and have a play with either or both of https://github.com/PDLPorters/pdla-core and https://github.com/PDLPorters/pdla-rest ! Next steps: * stop -rest using %PDLA::Config to decide on building stuff or not * make the -rest CI test everything, at least on Linux (I may need help for Windows) * make all the .pd files instead be Inline::Pdlapp .pm files, installable using Inline::Module, for PDLA::IO::HDF first, then ::Core (I already have a branch that this works on) * put the demos together with what they’re demo-ing, installed as PDLA::Demos::* * make the command shells search for PDLA::Demos::* when asked for what demos are available Somewhere in there, I’ll be making a “repro” tool, which will help in publishing easily-reproducible scientific experiments; it will capture OS + version, scripting language + version, modules + versions, actions (possibly from URLs), and expected outputs. Best regards, Ed From: Ed .<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:36 PM To: Chris Marshall<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pdl-general] Fw: [Pdl-devel] Whither PDL? Hi Chris, Good to hear from you! PDLA update. I just did an updating release for 2.013 to split PDLA::Rest (as I’m calling the remaining “kitchen sink” stuff) properly away from PDLA::Core. I need to do one more to fix a couple of indexing gremlins (like it still includes PDLA::IO::HDF which I’ve also split out, whoops). The continuing plan is: * further update for proper splitting as-is * generate from git the changes from PDLs 2.014-2.019, then current master * do my regex-based converting on them to PDLA * apply them to, then release PDLA distros for 2.014-2.019, including a 2.019001 (or so) that is current PDL master * fix a recent RT for PDLA::IO::HDF (anyone know HDF? it’s not finding “VSwrite”, maybe that’s already fixed in PDL since 2.013) * ensure the CI is all working well After that, I will write, release separately (of course), and incorporate notes about into PDLA, my new idea for “repro” – code to ease publishing of eg scientific experiments, but can also be used for general bug reporting. I also need to incorporate notes explaining PDLA vs PDL. Ref current PDL, I’d like to see PRs 259 (range speedup), and 58 (vsearch doc notes) merged if ready, and possibly also 234 (docsys updates) and 51 (badflag propagation) if ready. Then I’d like to see dev then main release of those. Such a release could also include a pointer to use PDLA? After that, there probably wouldn’t need to be much further done with PDL, but it would still be a responsible thing to do to at least create co-maints, just in case of a need to do security updates. I am open to taking that on if there’s no-one better. Best regards, Ed From: Chris Marshall<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 1:49 PM To: Ed .<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pdl-general] Fw: [Pdl-devel] Whither PDL? I concur with the move from a monolithic PDL to a more agile PDLA on github. My original thought was to finish 64-bit support a a couple of other key items under the old "kitchen sink" model of release and then that would transition to PDLA. The original PDLA was demonstrated before the 64-bit data support for PDL was implemented. @Ed: do you think it is worth a "bitrot fix" release of the old PDL process before the transition to an equivalent PDLA and end-of-lifing the old model at PDL-2.020? On another note, I am not able to devote the time to support PDL as the release manager and will be retiring from that responsibility. This PDL->PDLA transition would be a good point for that to happen. V/r, Chris On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:31 PM Ed . <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear pdl-general list, (had to send again, after subscribing - whoops) Luis has quite correctly reminded me of this list. I have very recently revived the question of "whither PDL", and am very interested to get the thoughts of the wider community. The relevant posting is: https://sourceforge.net/p/pdl/mailman/message/36638395/ - some explanation of detail on this crazy "PDLA" thing (I've checked, and PDLA does in fact still call its executable "pdl" - as I've said on the thread, that's a bug and I will fix it) Basically, the question is: do you, dear scientist/PDL user, still use PDL? Would the increased reproducibility that is easily within reach add value? (I emphasise reproducibility because a quick scan of the -general list showed people wanting to patch PDL "proper", which means anyone trying to reproduce their results would need to also use the patched version, which is a disaster in my opinion) Best regards, Ed -----Original Message----- From: Luis Mochan Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2019 4:00 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pdl-devel] Whither PDL? On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 12:45:54AM -0400, Terry Gaetz wrote: > I have been using PDL for more than a decade (or is it two?). Generally, > mere users don't pipe up on pdl-devel... Maybe more PDL users may be found on pdl-general -- o W. Luis Mochán, | tel:(52)(777)329-1734 /<(*) Instituto de Ciencias Físicas, UNAM | fax:(52)(777)317-5388 `>/ /\ Apdo. Postal 48-3, 62251 | (*)/\/ \ Cuernavaca, Morelos, México | [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> /\_/\__/ GPG: 791EB9EB, C949 3F81 6D9B 1191 9A16 C2DF 5F0A C52B 791E B9EB _______________________________________________ pdl-devel mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pdl-devel _______________________________________________ pdl-general mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pdl-general ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________________________________________ pdl-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pdl-general
_______________________________________________ pdl-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pdl-general
