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,
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,
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 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,
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 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,
-
Desmond O. Chang -
Luís Oliveira -
Nicolas Martyanoff