I don't see any reason for this to be a parameter. And I can think of
a use for it as a pin. (see users list, gantry thread)
A parameter-to-pin switch should never break any configs, so I suggest
changing it to an output pin, and pushing that to the 2.5 branch.
Any objections?
--
atp
If you
On May 24, 2013, at 03:43 , andy pugh wrote:
I don't see any reason for this to be a parameter. And I can think of
a use for it as a pin. (see users list, gantry thread)
A parameter-to-pin switch should never break any configs, so I suggest
changing it to an output pin, and pushing that to
andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 May 2013 15:38, Sebastian Kuzminsky s...@highlab.com wrote:
I object to changing it in 2.5, but i don't object to changing it in
master (if you test it and make sure none of the sample configs break).
I can't test every sample config, I don't have
On May 24, 2013, at 08:52 , andy pugh wrote:
On 24 May 2013 15:38, Sebastian Kuzminsky s...@highlab.com wrote:
We're way too deep into the 2.5 release to change stuff like this. Pins and
parameters do behave differently, and while we may not have any configs that
care, we don't know what
On 24 May 2013 16:43, Sebastian Kuzminsky s...@highlab.com wrote:
2.5.0 is over a year old now, and we're nowhere near releasing 2.6. One
thing i'd like to do at the hackfest is talk about what features people want
in 2.6, and come up with some sort of plan for getting those features in and
On 24 May 2013 17:02, Chris Radek ch...@timeguy.com wrote:
I thought it was a pin already. I had always thought (in my it
shouldn't be too hard... way) that keying off that would be a way
to make an external component that slaves two motors and fakes all
the home signals etc. It'd be pretty
Chris Radek wrote:
I still hope to work on joint slaving at fest next month - I have
the test hardware built and with jepler's help (a loaner 7i30 and
5i20) I should have the hardware to run it.
Great, this has come up several times in the past, and I really didn't
have a way
to test anything
On May 24, 2013, at 09:53 , andy pugh wrote:
On 24 May 2013 16:43, Sebastian Kuzminsky s...@highlab.com wrote:
2.5.0 is over a year old now, and we're nowhere near releasing 2.6. One
thing i'd like to do at the hackfest is talk about what features people want
in 2.6, and come up with
On 5/24/2013 12:18 PM, andy pugh wrote:
On 24 May 2013 17:02, Chris Radekch...@timeguy.com wrote:
I thought it was a pin already. I had always thought (in my it
shouldn't be too hard... way) that keying off that would be a way
to make an external component that slaves two motors and
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 05:18:28PM +0100, andy pugh wrote:
To maintain this separately, it'd be great if you want to make a new
branch off v2.5_branch with this change. Buildbot will even build
and package it for you (seb pointed me to Sorting of... on
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:36:11AM -0500, Jon Elson wrote:
Great, this has come up several times in the past, and I really didn't
have a way
to test anything short of building a mockup. I could bring a few extra
pieces
of hardware too, if that helps.
My mockup is nice, and is good and
On 5/24/2013 12:46 PM, Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
I've certainly been assuming that we'll stay with Ubuntu, and that we'll
target basically what we're currently building on the buildbot: Hardy sim
rtai, Lucid sim rtai, Precise sim, plus any new rtos options we merge.
Since Lucid Desktop,
andy pugh wrote:
I understand that gentrivkins and ja3 works acceptably, but I have no
idea if this also includes index-homing. It seems to me that it can
only really work if the two indexes are set up in the right place.
(or, I suppose, if the encoder components grew a fixed-offset pin)
Dave wrote:
I suggested it earlier as a way to check that two slaved axes were
acceptably in-synch.
One unpleasant scenario in the machine described is the failure of one
home-switch, but not the other. I suggested a component that would
panic if one axis was still searching more than a few
14 matches
Mail list logo
