Hi Gilles,
I'm fine with the pull request method too. We hadn't been considering this
avenue for master updates
in the transition to github. I think as long as we have a set way for
associating the pull of a given
request into master, so they don't end up in a kind of purgatory, we'll be
in good
Yeah - to be clear, I had no problem with anything you did, Gilles. I was only
noting that several of them had positive comments, but they weren’t being
merged. Hate to see the good work lost or forgotten :-)
> On Nov 6, 2014, at 5:29 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
> wrote:
>
> Actually, I like
Actually, I like the PRs; I like the nice github tools for commenting and
discussing.
I'm sorry I haven't followed up on the two you filed for me yet. :-(
On Nov 6, 2014, at 8:23 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet
wrote:
> My bad (mostly)
>
> I made quite a lot of PR to get some review before commit
My bad (mostly)
I made quite a lot of PR to get some review before commiting to the master, and
did not follow up in a timely manner.
I closed two obsoletes PR today.
#245 should be ready for prime time.
#227 too unless George has an objection.
I asked Jeff to review #232 and #228 because they
On Nov 6, 2014, at 6:21 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> I agree - I sent the note because I see people doing things a bit differently
> than expected. I have no issue with PRs for things where people want extra
> eyes on something before committing, or as part of an RFC. Just want to
> ensure folks
I agree - I sent the note because I see people doing things a bit differently
than expected. I have no issue with PRs for things where people want extra eyes
on something before committing, or as part of an RFC. Just want to ensure folks
aren’t letting them languish expecting some kind of gateke
HI Ralph,
We should discuss this on Tuesday. I thought we'd decided for master to
use a model where developers would directly push to ompi/master.
I'd be willing to pull the request from Giles marked as bugs tomorrow.
Howard
2014-11-06 13:16 GMT-07:00 Ralph Castain :
> Hey folks
>
> We seem t
I have 2, namely #228 (Fix --with-fortran=... logic) and #232 (RFC/weak symbols
status ignore).
I will look at them eventually, there just haven't been enough hours in the day
yet, especially with SC coming up. :-(
On Nov 6, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> Hey folks
>
> We seem to
Hey folks
We seem to be creating a bunch of pull requests on the trunk (well, by “we” I
mean mostly Gilles) that are then being left hanging there, going stale. Some
of these are going to start conflicting with changes being made by others, or
even conflict with each other.
Can we do a “purge”
