Open marksantcroos opened 9 years ago
Sure.
Branches are in sync again. I will keep "release" in place as it might be used in some documentation / installation instructions.
I have also created a 'regular' devel branch.
I will keep "release" in place as it might be used in some documentation / installation instructions.
Aren't we early enough in the life of this project to just fix the documentation?
An, iff we keep it, could we use the same branch names as for the other projects? ;) I am sure you expected this comment, right? :D
There's some testing for ExTASY 0.1 going on at the moment. Removing the "release" branch would be disruptive. I'll remove it before ExTASY 0.2.
On 25 Sep 2014, at 12:09 , Ole Weidner notifications@github.com wrote:
There's some testing for ExTASY going on at the moment. Removing the "release" branch would be disruptive. I'll remove it before ExTASY 0.2.
Fair enough, and thanks for merging!
Devel and release are in addition to being behind master for some number of commits also one commit ahead of master, but I think master is being used?
I believe we wanted to get rid of release?
Is this thing on pypi now or still released from source? I could find an explicit reference to install it in the ExTASY documentation but not with EnMDTK.
I'm not sure about the other projects, but ExTASY uses mdkernels/master. It's not on pypi as well.
EnMDTK does not use mdkernels.
I'm not sure about the other projects, but ExTASY uses mdkernels/master. It's not on pypi as well.
Thanks!
EnMDTK does not use mdkernels.
Ok, this surprised me, but I see indeed in the code now that EnMDTK uses its own kernels.
Oh well, more ammunition for https://github.com/radical-cybertools/radical.pilot/issues/498 :-)
Indeed -- merging and outsourcing of the application kernels might be a nice (semester?) project for the future, especially since there are more than one stakeholder in the Kernels now.
Any takers? ;-)
Can we stick to conventions regarding branching?