#linuxcnc-devel | Logs for 2015-12-20

[11:07:36] <seb_kuzminsky> dgarr: the build failure is because your ja10v2 branch is based on a too-old version of master, which doesn't know that it doesn't work on jessie's rtai
[11:07:57] <seb_kuzminsky> the current master knows, so next time you(?) rebase onto master, it'll pick it up
[11:14:45] <KGB-linuxcnc> 03Dewey Garrett 05dgarr/ja10v3 0deb454 06linuxcnc New branch with 217 commits pushed, 10560 files changed, 0325017(+), 0427219(-) since master/cc48cac
[12:28:02] <KGB-linuxcnc> 05dgarr/ja10v2 a9a946d 06linuxcnc 04. branch deleted * 14http://git.linuxcnc.org/?p=linuxcnc.git;a=commitdiff;h=a9a946d
[18:58:39] <micges> zlog: ahoy
[19:56:56] <KGB-linuxcnc> 03Dewey Garrett 05dgarr/ja10v3 12b0495 06linuxcnc 10src/Makefile 10src/emc/usr_intf/axis/scripts/teach-in.py teach-in.py update for joints_axes * 14http://git.linuxcnc.org/?p=linuxcnc.git;a=commitdiff;h=12b0495
[20:21:48] <cradek> wow it looks like he's down to the little details
[21:00:32] <jepler> are we OK with removing keystick/mini? (I am tbh)
[21:01:13] <jepler> though I would also be happy to have a maintainer appear and adapt it to JA too
[21:06:19] <cradek> either way is fine with me too
[21:06:47] <jepler> I sent an e-mail calling for maintainers
[21:07:03] <jepler> hopefully I didn't write anything too dumb, I didn't proofread it
[21:07:06] <cradek> I think if dewey is doing the work he gets to decide - someone else can do that part of the work if they want to
[21:07:58] <jepler> It depends how much there is a perception that there's some baby in with all that bathwater
[21:09:11] <cradek> yeah, I suppose
[21:09:22] <cradek> it's a very tiny baby, if any
[21:09:47] <cradek> if sherline is still using mini they really ought to step up
[21:09:50] <jepler> If there were a patch that achieved <absurdly small goal> and broke <all the parts of linuxcnc we think are used the most>, we'd turn it down, not tell everyone else to scramble to fix the rest of the system.
[21:10:14] <cradek> sure, but that's not the situation at all
[21:10:18] <jepler> no it's absolutely not
[22:04:11] <jepler> hm, you should probably test the calendar function of your new SoC before committing it to silicon.. https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=f076ef44a44d02ed91543f820c14c2c7dff53716