pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] hotproc rfc

To: Martins Innus <minnus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] hotproc rfc
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 01:44:32 -0500 (EST)
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5491CB2C.3060208@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <536D28B4.6010504@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1139662762.4765310.1399862104653.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <54230FAF.2080201@xxxxxxxxxxx> <905561536.62723741.1412657864635.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <5491CB2C.3060208@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: O2f6Qa8IU6zxRyDF+/rU+SPrtJMR6A==
Thread-topic: hotproc rfc

----- Original Message -----
> Nathan,
>      I think this is in a pretty good state now.  You can grab from here:
> 
> https://github.com/ubccr/pcp/tree/hotproc_review
> 
> I left it in it's own branch for now in case you think there is more
> work to do before merging.  The git history is pretty ugly as I have
> been updating it to keep up with dev for a while.  But it should merge
> cleanly.  I just include the diffstat against dev here:

OK, all merged now - I made some small tweaks, if you could double
check those?  I musta had a leftover hotproc.conf from earlier cos
the test failed - updated to deal with that too.

> >
> > (there's several different coding styles in this file, makes it
> > a bit jarring to read for me)
> I tried to fix this up.  Some tab/space issues and formatting due to my
> copy and past of some of the original code I think.

I had a little hack at this too - its looking much better now.

> I would expect more QA needs and other fixes as other people test.

Yep, sounds good to me.

> Thanks for the help.

No problem at all.

cheers.

--
Nathan

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