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

A Dimecres, 29 de maig de 2013, Peter Soetens va escriure:
> 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.

ok, I take the challenge. How many time do I have to do it? Could be done  
before 2.7?
 
> Can't we just name it log4cpp2 and install headers/libs accordingly ?

some proposes:

- olog4cpp (orocos log ....)
- log4cpprt (log 4 cpp real time)
- l4cpprt (...)
- rtl4cpp
.....

but log4cpp2 is not very original .... sorry ... :-(

Leo


> Peter
> 


-- 
--
Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda <[email protected]>
Institut d'Organització i Control de Sistemes Industrials -IOC-
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya -UPC-

Institute of Industrial and Control Engineering
Technical University of Catalonia
Avda. Diagonal 647, pl. 11
08028 BARCELONA (Spain)

Tel. +34-934017163
Fax. +34-934016605
-- 
Orocos-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev