o. release dependencies need clarification

CNMAT / CNMAT-MMJSS

31 stars 5 forks source link

o. release dependencies need clarification #9

Closed equilet closed 10 years ago

equilet commented 10 years ago

I'll be adding to this list...

The following externals / patches are included in the unstable folder and I'm trying to figure out which of them are worth including the unstable folder for...

o.io.esplora: used o.downcast (should i pull this out of the patch? is there a replacement or is it unnecessary?)
o.context: used in o.out, o.port, o.aspect.joinpoint
o.validate: used in o.io.slipserial
o.pak: used in o.port ([p getpatchernames])
o.slip.encode: seems pretty imp for o.io.esplora; used in o.io.slipserial

equilet commented 10 years ago

mainly what i need to know is the following:

o.pak is the most obvious case, and there may be others (checking): o.pak is in patches deployed in the release, but we've agreed that we'll not use it anywhere... we need to review the instances of it and modify as necessary

ilzxc commented 10 years ago

GitHub can search for "o.pak" occurrences in the code - I've done that for reviewing patches that use o.schedule. Thanks for reminder on this, if you get to it before me, let me know which patches those are. Also let me know if you are working on them so we don't end up stepping on each other's toes. :)

On Jul 15, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Jeffrey Lubow notifications@github.com wrote:

mainly what i need to know is the following:

o.pak is the most obvious case, and there may be others (checking): o.pak is in patches deployed in the release, but we've agreed that we'll not use it anywhere... we need to review the instances of it and modify as necessary

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

equilet commented 10 years ago

check the following first:

o.in
o.out
o.port
o.aspect.joinpoint

maccallum commented 10 years ago

I just removed an o.pak from o.port, but there may be others. The thing is that o.pak is often used in a way that leverages its functionality (this was the case in o.port), so we need to be careful about how we replace it.

On Jul 15, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Jeffrey Lubow notifications@github.com wrote:

check the following first: o.in o.out o.port

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

equilet commented 10 years ago

thanks, john. i knew there was a special reason you were using it there, so i wanted to stay out. i'll look at this implementation in order to answer a number of questions i've had as things have developed this last couple of weeks.

equilet commented 10 years ago

ah, the ever-elusive done message. i have a love/hate relationship w/ that one.