Re: On Rock's master/next/stable and orocos-toolchain's master/stable

On May 28, 2013, at 07:42 , Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:

> Hi Peter,
> 
> A Dimarts, 28 de maig de 2013, Peter Soetens va escriure:
>> Hi Leo,
>> 
>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> A Dilluns, 27 de maig de 2013, Peter Soetens va escriure:
>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Sylvain Joyeux
>>> <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>>> First issue: orocos/stable and autobuild/stable have diverged. I
>>>>> obviously don't want to update Rock's stable/next with code that did 
> not
>>>>> get tested within the Rock workflow.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Since we, so far, talked about having next/stable become the 'rock'
>>>>> branches, would you be OK with me force-pushing Rock's stable to
>>>>> orocos-toolchain's stable ? In the long run, we'll use the same 
> branches
>>>>> so we will indeed converge ...
>>>> 
>>>> No problem, but we'd better announce it on orocos-users as well.
>>> 
>>> Peter, Sylvain,
>>> 
>>> if the debian directory of rtt, typelib, utilmm, and ocl are not used, 
> please
>>> could you rename it?
>>> 
>>> I'm working on debianize orocos-toolchain and put in on debian under the
>>> debian-science group and these directories could make me collisions. If 
> nobody
>>> are using it, maybe it could be a good idea for 2.7 rename it.
>> 
>> It's true that it's no longer frequently used, but why don't you use
>> it yourself ?
>> It was tuned to create packages for xenomai and gnulinux...
> 
> I know, and I have used it a lot. And Sylvain did a good job too. I can do it, 
> but AFAIK the idea is to make a git under debian-science tree. 
> 
> I'm not an expert of git, but do you know if it's possible to create a git 
> repo remote and then sync theses directories to the official of orocos?
> 
> If yes, then I create this repos and after my job is done I ask a push of 
> these to the gitorious .

If I understand what you're asking, the model is usually for you to create a repo in github/gitorious, request a merge to Orocos official, and then the Orocos maintainers can pull your repo and decide what/how/when to merge.

>>> Also, I have asked it before but no answer, if orocos developers maintains 
> a
>>> fork of log4cpp and log4cpp is in debian and ubuntu, please could you 
> think
>>> seriously to change the name?
>> 
>> It's hardly a fork, it's the only maintained version, so our version
>> should have a higher
>> version number than the Debian/Ubuntu version in a sense...
> 
> 
> I don't agree. Log4cpp has a debian package and maintained. Orocos team made a 
> fork and IMHO should change the name.

At the time we forked, development on log4cpp had effectively ceased. That has changed slightly since, but it's still barely maintained.

> Looking on the project, they have changes last year (2012-10-15 18:48 by 
> sanchouss_) so, maybe it could be interested join the two forks, or separate 
> it. Another question should be if the log4ccp developers would like to add the 
> forked branch. Probably they didn't know about it.

The developers do know about it, and weren't particularly interested in merging it when we added the features needed to support realtime operations. It is definitely worth us updating from them; I've looked a couple of times and haven't seen any significant reason to merge with what little development they've done. It's probably worth another look.

HTH
S
-- 
Orocos-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev