Done! On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller < [email protected]> wrote:
> Actually, after having done some searching, it turns out that the > ocaml-zmq binding had fallen behind, which relies off of cppzmq (oddly > enough, ocaml bindings only go to C via ctypes, not C++... :/) > > In any case, I'm sorry I tied things up, I have been working on this mad > sprint for pushing software today, and I'm even still working on that. I > have edits to like 4-7 open source projects sitting around with my trying > to get everything pristine before shipping. Sorry! I'm shipping ocaml-zmq > changes at this moment. > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Crap, I'm really sorry! Let me ship that right now. I was thinking about >> this not too long ago and wondering where my commit went, because I know I >> made edits... >> >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Arnaud Kapp <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Kenneth, is your patch ready? >>> Also, do you mean that the current cppzmq head doesn't work correctly >>> with current libzmq head ? (as in we shouldn't merge now). >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:47 AM, Kenneth Adam Miller >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Oh, I have something to merge in to allow the newest version to work >>> well >>> > together, let me do a merge request before you execute this please. >>> > >>> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Sounds good to me. It never developed as a separate project, did it. >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Arnaud Kapp <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> > Hello, >>> >> > >>> >> > I've stumbled upon this issue >>> https://github.com/zeromq/cppzmq/issues/48 >>> >> > . >>> >> > Basically the cppzmq binding (header only, 1 file) is not versioned >>> >> > and not packaged on some distros. >>> >> > >>> >> > People wants this file to be tagged to ease versionning, which make >>> >> > sense. >>> >> > However, wouldn't it be even better if this was part of libzmq. I >>> >> > *believe* this was the case a long time ago, but the choice was made >>> >> > to split them. >>> >> > >>> >> > I don't know the reason, but maybe it's worth considering merging >>> them >>> >> > back. After all, zmq.hpp is a very thin wrapper and I don't think >>> it'd >>> >> > be too annoying to maintain as part of libzmq. >>> >> > >>> >> > What are your thoughts on this? >>> >> > >>> >> > -- >>> >> > Kapp Arnaud - Xaqq >>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> > zeromq-dev mailing list >>> >> > [email protected] >>> >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> zeromq-dev mailing list >>> >> [email protected] >>> >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > zeromq-dev mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kapp Arnaud - Xaqq >>> _______________________________________________ >>> zeromq-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
