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

On May 29, 2013, at 06:09 , Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:

> 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 ... :-(

Before we take action, why don't we go back to upstream and let them know our plans. Maybe they're willing to merge now?
S

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