[cffi-devel] Groveller bitfield support
Hi, On 2010-04-30 a patch was submitted to the cffi-devel mailing-list (http://www.mail-archive.com/cffi-devel@common-lisp.net/msg01820.html), adding support for bitfield in the groveller. On 2010-05-01, a ticket was created about this patch on launchpad (https://bugs.launchpad.net/cffi/+bug/622338). Recently, I asked Stelian Ionescu on #lisp if it was possible to apply the patch to the cffi trunk, and the answer seemed positive. Is there something that prevents committing this patch ? I use it in three different personal projects, it works. If the people which manage the git repository don't have the time (for the last 10 months…) to apply a trivial patch (1 minute top), would they consider giving a commit bit to people that can ? Thank you, -- Nicolas Martyanoff http://codemore.org khaelin@gmail.com
Hi all, On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 16:59, Nicolas Martyanoff <khaelin@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On 2010-04-30 a patch was submitted to the cffi-devel mailing-list (http://www.mail-archive.com/cffi-devel@common-lisp.net/msg01820.html), adding support for bitfield in the groveller.
On 2010-05-01, a ticket was created about this patch on launchpad (https://bugs.launchpad.net/cffi/+bug/622338).
Recently, I asked Stelian Ionescu on #lisp if it was possible to apply the patch to the cffi trunk, and the answer seemed positive.
Is there something that prevents committing this patch ? I use it in three different personal projects, it works.
If the people which manage the git repository don't have the time (for the last 10 months…) to apply a trivial patch (1 minute top), would they consider giving a commit bit to people that can ?
I'm the author. This patch has been commited to the branch 'master' of my cffi fork [1][2]. Maintainer, please pull that branch. [1] git://github.com/dochang/cffi.git [2] https://github.com/dochang/cffi Thanks, Des
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Desmond O. Chang <dochang@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm the author. This patch has been commited to the branch 'master' of my cffi fork [1][2]. Maintainer, please pull that branch.
Can you add the appropriate bits to the User Manual? Cheers, -- Luís Oliveira http://r42.eu/~luis/
Hi, On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 23:00, Luís Oliveira <luismbo@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Desmond O. Chang <dochang@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm the author. This patch has been commited to the branch 'master' of my cffi fork [1][2]. Maintainer, please pull that branch.
Can you add the appropriate bits to the User Manual?
Added. Thanks, Des
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Desmond O. Chang <dochang@gmail.com> wrote:
Can you add the appropriate bits to the User Manual?
Added.
Pushed. Sorry about the long delay. Thanks! -- Luís Oliveira http://r42.eu/~luis/
Luís Oliveira <luismbo@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Desmond O. Chang <dochang@gmail.com> wrote:
Can you add the appropriate bits to the User Manual?
Added.
Pushed. Sorry about the long delay.
Thanks!
Thank you, works perfectly here! Regards, -- Nicolas Martyanoff http://codemore.org khaelin@gmail.com
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Nicolas Martyanoff <khaelin@gmail.com> wrote:
Is there something that prevents committing this patch ? I use it in three different personal projects, it works.
Thanks, that is useful feedback.
If the people which manage the git repository don't have the time (for the last 10 months…) to apply a trivial patch (1 minute top), would they consider giving a commit bit to people that can ?
Applying the patch is indeed trivial. Verifying that it works correctly is not as trivial. Adding the missing documentation bits to the User Manual takes a little bit of extra time too. Anyway, maintenance help is of course most welcome. In that regard, the one thing that cffi-grovel is currently missing the most is a test suite. If you're inclined to work on that, that'd be great. I'd start with a bitfield test case. Cheers, -- Luís Oliveira http://r42.eu/~luis/
Luís Oliveira <luismbo@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Nicolas Martyanoff <khaelin@gmail.com> wrote:
If the people which manage the git repository don't have the time (for the last 10 months…) to apply a trivial patch (1 minute top), would they consider giving a commit bit to people that can ?
Applying the patch is indeed trivial. Verifying that it works correctly is not as trivial. Adding the missing documentation bits to the User Manual takes a little bit of extra time too.
Anyway, maintenance help is of course most welcome. In that regard, the one thing that cffi-grovel is currently missing the most is a test suite. If you're inclined to work on that, that'd be great. I'd start with a bitfield test case.
In that case, please just say clearly on launchpad "we won't include it because there's no doc and/or no test case" :) If the official answer is simply "we don't want it", I'll just fork the git repository. The issue was the absence of feedback, nothing more. Regards, -- Nicolas Martyanoff http://codemore.org khaelin@gmail.com
participants (3)
-
Desmond O. Chang -
Luís Oliveira -
Nicolas Martyanoff