Re: Status of unsigned

[Marty K. <mrk...@co...>]

On 03/16/2012 10:17 AM, White, Greg wrote:
> Marty, David,
>
> Could you remind me of the status of work on unsigned? I was madly trying to do NTypes and service interfaces
> when David propsoal came in. The Feb 15th Meeting minutes say Marty will prepare code based on his proposal, and David will prepare a refactor of that when it's complete so we can compare.
>
> Is that still the plan? So Marty are you now implementing now what is in [1] or have you finished I've missed the notification email?

Implementing unsigned impacts a lot of code.
There also seems to be agreement that fieldName should be moved from 
Field to Structure.
Matej and I have also discussed if the C++ implementation should expose 
all subfield info via shared pointers.

Since all impact a lot of of code all should be done at the same time.

In my working version of pvDataWWW I have moved unsigned.html to 
pvDataPVAccessChanges.html.
It describes all the proposed changes.
I do not want to commit this change until the problem of the two heads 
is resolved so I have attached it.

Another issue is how do Matej and I make these changes without impacting 
everyone else?
So far I don't think any of us have worked on mercurial branches on purpose.

So what will the procedures be for braches?

Marty
>   David, can you put your design proposal doc in pvDataWWW/alpha/ so we can keep a copy on the web?
>
> Cheers
> Greg
>
>
> [0] http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28839054
> [1] http://epics-pvdata.hg.sourceforge.net/hgweb/epics-pvdata/pvDataWWW/raw-file/tip/mainPage/alpha/unsigned.html
>