pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: PCP SourceForge [was Re: Java JNI PMAPI]

To: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: PCP SourceForge [was Re: Java JNI PMAPI]
From: Michael Werner <mtw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:32:48 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alan Hoyt <ahyt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0511291144430.6606@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20050411093715.A15051@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504220823110.9546@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <436A02CA.3020202@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <436ADFC1.4000403@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1132774670.4368.5.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.GSO.4.60.0511261419560.20979@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1133185136.29186.26.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.GSO.4.60.0511281512250.28341@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0511291144430.6606@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: mtw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: pcp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Mark,

The plan sounds fine to me. I expect it will be a straightformard
matter to merge the 2.5.0 release into my codebase. I'll write you
when it's done.  I surmise that you would find it more convenient
to diff my repository yourself (assuming you are familiar with cvs);
all the information for doing so will soon be posted. Which do you
prefer?

You are all correct that PCP should be more prominantly listed in
the project description, to shine more brightly on the radar.  Do
understand that my project is suite of several tools, which PCP
is one important member of.

- mtw

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Mark Goodwin wrote:


On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Michael Werner wrote:
..
Are you feeding these changes back to Mark?  I'd hate for the core PCP
code to become forked.

All my source code mods will be available from sourceforge, along with
the bug reports and release notes.  It will be a simple matter for
Mark to diff the revision tags and get the mods.  I've been careful to
ensure that my changes are compatible with SGI's internal build reqs.

Hi Michael,

Firstly, thanks for creating the new sf project. I agree with comments
from others that it needs a more accurate title & keywords, but in
concept it's an excellent step forward for PCP.

Your changes are against pcp-2.4.0 (as currently on oss.sgi.com), right?
The new release coming is pcp-2.5.0 so you'll need to reconcile against
the new code base. That shouldn't be a big deal but I'd rather you did
it and fed the resulting patches back to me. I'll push 2.5.0 up to
oss.sgi.com as soon as I can. I was hoping to include some libpcp changes
(as mentioned in earlier mail), but given the level of interest at the
moment, it may be better just to push 2.5.0 up to oss asap, and then have
a series of incremental minor releases as people feed patches back to me.

Does this sound like a good plan for all?

Thanks
-- Mark



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>