Combination of the push and xpush routines making xpush(push -x) and push...
Open Source Solid Modeling CAD
Brought to you by:
brlcad
Menu
▾
▴
1 Attachments
#190 Combination of the push and xpush routines making xpush(push -x) and push stays the same.
This command merges the push and xpush routines for BRL-CAD making the xpush 'push -x' but however i'm still working on making it recognise the xpush case for an object and automatically perform the xpush without necessarily using the push -x option.
still to convert file to diff format
modified push to recognise the xpush in case the -x option is ommited or ignored.
modified CMakeLists file in (src/libged) to accomdate new push command and remove xpush
modified ged.h file to remove xpush so as to support only new push command
modified setup.c file to accomodate new push only command
modified tclcad_obj.c file to accomodate new push only command and blank pull command.
Nyah, you need to provide some instruction here. What are we supposed to do with all of these files? If they're all related, they should be one patch file. If they are not related and will apply cleanly/independently, you need to say that. If they need to be applied in any particular order, you need to say that. Having us guessing or spending time to figure it out is a waste of time.
ok thanks for the comment Sean will get on it and provide further info
on the patches by tomorrow.
Thanks
Nyah
On 6/27/13, Sean Morrison brlcad@users.sf.net wrote:
Related
Patches:
#190Well Sean this is the order in which the changes will be applied
CMakeLists_patch to(/src/libged/)
ged_h.patch(/include/ged.h)
setup_patch(/include/mged/setup.c)
tclcad_obj_patch(/src/libtclcad/tclcad_obj.c)
then
push_patch(/src/libged/push.c)
apply them in this order it should compile cleanly. but however here is the modified push_patch you should apply and ignore the one above.
I know this new routine still needs some work. Still working hard on it.
Nyah, those are all separate files... and from your description, it sounds like they're all related. As I stated, since they are all related, they should be in just one patch file. SVN will do this for you... There are lots of tutorials on how to do this (like http://ariejan.net/2007/07/03/how-to-create-and-apply-a-patch-with-subversion/).
That said, it really matters what you mean by "it needs some more work". If you mean it does not conform to our style, that is not acceptable. If you mean it is incomplete but compiles cleanly and has no downsides to being applied, that would be acceptable. You want patches to be the bare minimum that will apply, compile, and run without issue, even if there is "more" to be done. Style, indentation, and bad symbol names, however, are not optional.
Please repost as a single patchfile that conforms with HACKING, thanks!
all the submitted files are in diff format..
Well i'll still verify make sure its in diff format.. :)
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Sean Morrison brlcad@users.sf.net wrote:
Related
Patches:
#190The problem isn't that they're in diff format, it's that they are in separate files. Don't just run the "diff" command. Run the "svn diff" command. Read the link I posted, read the single patch file that results.
ok i'll try to make them a single patch file.
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Sean Morrison brlcad@users.sf.net wrote:
Related
Patches:
#190Nyah,
Where are you with creating a single patch file for this change?
here is the single patch for this change
here is the patch file that lists all the changes.
On 7/17/13, Cliff Yapp starseeker@users.sf.net wrote:
Related
Patches:
#190Here is the patch file that shows all the changes made
Nyah, this patch is not in the right format, does not apply cleanly, and does not appear to be based off of an svn checkout. Is there a reason for this?
It's been stated numerous times now to make sure your patches apply cleanly to a fresh checkout. Moreover, if I read the file, it looks like there are little whitespace inconsistencies being introduced (e.g., "push -x", "push -x ", " #include", ...). Please take care of these issues so the patch may be applied.
we'll have Internet connection in the Lab tomorrow so i'll make the patches
from an svn checkout and submit.
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 4:45 AM, Sean Morrison brlcad@users.sf.net wrote:
Related
Patches:
#190Updated change was resubmitted as patch 217. Closing this one out as rejected/duplicate.