Re: [Emc-developers] NOTICE: Feature freeze pending in view of a new release

From: Moses McKnight Sent: June 28, 2016 2:43 PM To: EMC developers Subject: [Emc-developers] NOTICE: Feature freeze pending in view of a new release Hi all, In accordance with the recommendation from the last IRC meeting, I plan to make a

Re: [Emc-developers] NOTICE: Feature freeze pending in view of a new release

... I would like to see the reverse run branch. What is its status? On Jun 28 2016 11:43 AM, sam sokolik wrote: > I think the reverse run branch should get merged after the freeze. > > On 6/28/2016 11:08 AM, Chris Radek wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:36:40AM -0400, John Kasunich

Re: [Emc-developers] NOTICE: Feature freeze pending in view of a new release

I think the reverse run branch should get merged after the freeze. On 6/28/2016 11:08 AM, Chris Radek wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:36:40AM -0400, John Kasunich wrote: >> It is only monotonically increasing if you interpret it as two integers >> separated by a dot. Humans can interpret it

Re: [Emc-developers] NOTICE: Feature freeze pending in view of a new release

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:36:40AM -0400, John Kasunich wrote: > > It is only monotonically increasing if you interpret it as two integers > separated by a dot. Humans can interpret it any way they want, but > how do programs interpret it? for debian packages this is really well defined, but

Re: [Emc-developers] NOTICE: Feature freeze pending in view of a new release

On 28 June 2016 at 15:43, Moses McKnight wrote: > So does anyone that have a feature or something you are working on that you > would like to get in before the release? I have a patch that supports multiple spindles. I do not expect to merge that immediately, but would like

Re: [Emc-developers] NOTICE: Feature freeze pending in view of a new release

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016, at 11:23 AM, Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote: > On 06/28/2016 08:43 AM, Moses McKnight wrote: > > Another item I'm considering is changing the version to 3.0 for the next > > release. Any thoughts pro or con? If we don't change it this time, I would > > recommend using 2.8 now,

Re: [Emc-developers] NOTICE: Feature freeze pending in view of a new release

On 06/28/2016 08:43 AM, Moses McKnight wrote: > In accordance with the recommendation from the last IRC meeting, I plan to > make > a "feature freeze" and make a new branch for the next release in the near > future. The joints/axes project merge is a pretty major thing and we would > like > to

Re: [Emc-developers] NOTICE: Feature freeze pending in view of a new release

I vote 3.0 for JA. The integrator concepts and Ini changes are large enough to warrant it. Chris M - Reply message - From: "Moses McKnight" To: "EMC developers" Subject: [Emc-developers] NOTICE: Feature freeze pending in view of

Re: [Emc-developers] NOTICE: Feature freeze pending in view of a new release

I do not have much of a dog in this fight (as the saying goes), but here are my 2c... JA a sufficient change to warrant a full version bump, BUT are enough of the internals changed to compare from EMC-1.* to EMC-2.* => LinuxCNC-2.*? That I am not sure of. If we are going to switch to

[Emc-developers] NOTICE: Feature freeze pending in view of a new release

Hi all, In accordance with the recommendation from the last IRC meeting, I plan to make a "feature freeze" and make a new branch for the next release in the near future. The joints/axes project merge is a pretty major thing and we would like to release this sooner than later. So does anyone

[Emc-developers] Sticky tool parameters

Is there a neat way to have the system remember which tool is in the spindle? In the case of a random toolchanger the tool-in-spindle will be in pocket 0 in the tool table when that is saved, but that comes with a great deal of unwanted behaviour if the tool changer is non-random. Adding 5400 to