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

Hi Leo,

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
<[email protected]> wrote:
> A Dimarts, 28 de maig de 2013, S Roderick va escriure:
> [...]
>> > 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.
>
> Ok, must be in gitorious or could be in another public place?
>
>> >>> 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.
>
> Ok,
>
> IMHO if the log4cpp developers doesn't show any interest I would rename the
> project, clean a bit (all the autotools stuff) the sources and would continue
> as another subproject of toolchain. Then I could package it, independently of
> what the original authors / packagers done.

Many hands make light work, so if you want to pull this, it's fine for me.
Renaming is mostly an internal matter to the toolchain anyway.

Can't we just name it log4cpp2 and install headers/libs accordingly ?

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