Merging of my Link branch
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Re: Merging of my Link branch
Werner must be on holidays as he is abnormally silent.
This won't be merged until he comes back. As far as I know, he is basically the only one who can review and decide on a merge for this kind of "big amount of c++ work" (unless somebody manages to get jriegel back ).
This won't be merged until he comes back. As far as I know, he is basically the only one who can review and decide on a merge for this kind of "big amount of c++ work" (unless somebody manages to get jriegel back ).
Re: Merging of my Link branch
For the skills I have seen in his code, I do not think it would take him much time to "come back", should he decide to... but if you were trying to tease him, I can go along: "Sure he couldn't do it, not even if he wanted to"
Re: Merging of my Link branch
Yeah. I agree.
Re: Merging of my Link branch
I also recommend to split the branch. I guess there is more motivation to review a smaller amount of diff...JeeBee wrote:Don't know if it is possible to split the hole branch up in 3 or 4 steps. so not everything change in one moment...
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2190
- Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:55 am
Re: Merging of my Link branch
That's going to be difficult. Although there are a few small features that can be easily split up, the main 'Link' feature requires a lot of changes. I originally splitted this into three set of patches. But with the first two big patch set, there is nothing to show for in FC. Only after the third one will there be the actual 'Link' command in toolbar. And it is still not very useful, for example, it can't be used in Part, Editing won't work. There are numerous bug fixes following my original Stage3 patches.
The way I see it, we can just try my branch with existing workbenches, and confirm that nothing is broken. If so, then it is a bug, and I'll fix it. If this can pass, I think it is an indication that the merge will at low risk. The new stuff can be broadly divided by two category, 'Link' and topo naming. 'Link' stuff is best tested with my Assembly3 WB. Topo naming is tested by a few cases in post, and I am sure there is someone willing to come up with more elaborated test cases.
Hi wmayer, what do you think? Are you back yet?wmayer wrote:ping
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2190
- Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:55 am
Re: Merging of my Link branch
Well the truth is you haven't updated the existent one or opened a new pull request just yet:
https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/876
Therefore i guess that should be the next step.
https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/876
Therefore i guess that should be the next step.
Re: Merging of my Link branch
Is https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/876 obsolete ?
Alone you go faster. Together we go farther
Please mark thread [Solved]
Want to contribute back to FC? Checkout:
'good first issues' | Open TODOs and FIXMEs | How to Help FreeCAD | How to report Bugs
Please mark thread [Solved]
Want to contribute back to FC? Checkout:
'good first issues' | Open TODOs and FIXMEs | How to Help FreeCAD | How to report Bugs
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2190
- Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:55 am
Re: Merging of my Link branch
Yes, it is obsolete. This PR is based on my branch LinkStage1, and my current LinkStage3 is a descendant of this. But there are so many bug fixes after this, it is very difficult to split it again, and not to mention error prone.
That PR has 2.5K line changes, and can be considered a big one. The current change set is about 50K. I doubt github's PR facility is suitable for handling this, which is why I wrote documents and started this thread.triplus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:31 pm Well the truth is you haven't updated the existent one or opened a new pull request just yet:
https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/876
Therefore i guess that should be the next step.
Hi wmayer, still waiting for your response here.wmayer wrote: ping