On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 07:16:00AM -0700, Ralph Castain wrote:
> Yeah, even if someone volunteered to do the conversion work, we wouldn't get
> agreement on making such a change. Some of us hate git (myself included),
> some feel similarly about mercurial, etc.
>
> Unfortunately, we've seen enou
On Aug 20, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
>> Unfortunately, we've seen enough pain from git+svn to definitely not want to
>> go that route.
>
> Personally I have had no problems with git svn. In fact every commit I have
> made in the last 6 months has been with git svn dcommit. Any issu
Hmm. That sucks.
I have Lion, not Mountain Lion. All those tests pass for me with both:
[15:28] jsquyres-mac:~ % clang --version
Apple clang version 3.0 (tags/Apple/clang-211.12) (based on LLVM 3.0svn)
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin11.4.0
Thread model: posix
and
[15:28] jsquyres-mac:~ % gcc --
We keep having this discussion, and every time the answer is "no - stick with
what we currently do". Can we please stop having it over and over again?
Until someone can point out a problem that (a) needs solving and (b) can only
be solved by making a huge change to a DVCS, there is no reason to
Amusingly enough, this may be a moot discussion anyway, because I tried the SVN
features on github per their directions, and they didn't seem to work:
-
% svn co --depth empty https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi-svn-mirror
Checked out revision 17370.
% cd ompi-svn-mirror/
% svn up trunk
[hang fo
Mountain Lion ships with 4.0
Guess I could give it a shot, but I never use clang myself.
On Aug 20, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Hmm. That sucks.
>
> I have Lion, not Mountain Lion. All those tests pass for me with both:
>
> [15:28] jsquyres-mac:~ % clang --version
> Apple cla
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> I see a clang 3.1 on http://llvm.org/releases/, but I don't see a 4.0. Is
> that a released version?
Apple Clang has a different and unrelated version numbering compared
to open source clang.
Dmitri
--
main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j*
