#linuxcnc-devel Logs

May 17 2019

10:11 AM mozmck is now known as mozmck_m
10:23 AM mozmck_m is now known as mozmck
11:37 AM mozmck: Has anyone tried merging the TP changes from 2.7 into master yet?
01:00 PM mozmck: hmm, looks like rene_dev_ has a PR for it if I'm reading it correctly
01:30 PM mozmck: andypugh: it looks like you might have merged some of the fixes in this PR - is that right? https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/pull/581
01:33 PM mozmck: I see that it was pull request #547 - but pr #581 looks like it might have the same fix? This stuff gets confusing.
01:36 PM andypugh: I see hash 9326789 in both
01:36 PM mozmck: I'm wondering if we can merge pr 581 - any thoughts on that?
01:37 PM andypugh: Well, that has no conflicts, at least
01:38 PM mozmck: I don't know if seb is out for a while or what. My internet was down for 1.5 weeks a week ago
01:38 PM andypugh: But is a pull request for 2.7
01:38 PM mozmck: Yes, and that is the branch you applied two of the PR to it looks like.
01:39 PM mozmck: I'm pretty sure seb's policy was that bug-fixes are ok
01:39 PM andypugh: To be honest, I didn’t look that hard, as Rob is the only one who really understands his TP, and I basically trust him to know what needs fixing and how to do it.
01:40 PM mozmck: yeah, I guess my only hesitation would be that it's on 2.7, but I'm pretty sure seb will be ok with it.
01:41 PM mozmck: I'm *trying* to get some things done - and hopefully get 2.8 released soon. I'd like to see those TP fixes in there for sure.
02:49 PM andypugh: Yes, I would like to see 2.8 out and a new bleeding-edge “master”
02:50 PM andypugh: Though there are probably things to fix before 2.8 goes out.
02:51 PM andypugh: I was hoping to find time, bit I just put my schedule together and have 10 flights between now and september and 20 nights total in my own bed.
03:00 PM mozmck: Yeah, my life has been much more busy that I hoped, but I may have a little time on and off here for now.
03:01 PM mozmck: I was hoping rene would get the reverse run figured out, but I haven't heard more on that. It might have to wait.
03:01 PM mozmck: State tags is another one
03:15 PM andypugh: Well, rene_dev_ is online, but not necessarily awake
03:34 PM Tom_L: 2.8 added joints right?
03:35 PM Tom_L: run from here doesn't behave nice in 2.8
03:36 PM mozmck: Yes, on the joints.
03:37 PM mozmck: Tom_L: are you referring to this: https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/issues/572 or are there other problems with run from line?
03:38 PM Tom_L: same
03:39 PM Tom_L: i filed that, someone else filed the same prior to that
03:39 PM mozmck: ok
03:39 PM Tom_L: so there are at least 2 open issues pertaining to the same thing
03:40 PM Tom_L: yeah, "Duplicate of #246"
03:41 PM Tom_L: was ok in 2.7
04:30 PM JT-Shop: mozmck: I see itai commented on the timer component
04:36 PM mozmck_m: Will look shortly
05:17 PM rene_dev_: Andypugh awake and online
05:18 PM rene_dev_: Mozmck the tp fixes would be great
05:18 PM rene_dev_: A lot of conflicts tho
05:20 PM mozmck: I saw some.
05:22 PM rene_dev_: Most are easy to fix
05:22 PM rene_dev_: There are a few other things that annoy me about 2.8
05:22 PM rene_dev_: I probably have a list somewhere
05:23 PM mozmck: It would be really good to get them fixed and release 2.8
05:34 PM rene_dev_: Yes
05:34 PM rene_dev_: Lets use the github milestone feature
05:34 PM rene_dev_: To track tem
05:34 PM Tom_L: #246 is pretty annoying
05:36 PM rene_dev_: 588
05:37 PM rene_dev_: https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/issues/374
05:37 PM mozmck: I see there is a milestone for 2.8 already...
05:37 PM rene_dev_: Annoys me all the time on my lathe
05:43 PM mozmck: rene_dev_: I've added some issues to the 2.8 milestone - please add any more you think really should be fixed for 2.8
07:43 PM jthornton: #374 does look annoying for sure
08:08 PM jthornton: mozmck: when I change something in 2.7 docs that should get merged to 2.8 in the past I used jepler as a crutch so if you have any hints how to do this please let me know. I use both git gui and git kracken
08:10 PM mozmck: I don't know if I have any hints off-hand. I'm not quite sure how I messed up the time.comp merge!
08:10 PM mozmck: I looked at git kracken but they want you to set up an account with them, so I deleted it. I've recently started using GitAhead a little and it looks nice.
08:11 PM mozmck: I haven't used gitg for a long time, but I don't like the changes in the newer version (in Ubuntu 16.04)
08:11 PM jthornton: I don't recall setting up an account for git kracken
08:12 PM jthornton: working on #582
08:12 PM mozmck: Well, maybe older versions didn't? I just downloaded the other day and it wanted an account or at least a github account. I just wanted something to help visualize stuff locally.
08:13 PM jthornton: ah yea they want your github account so it can push and pull
08:14 PM mozmck: Huh, well I couldn't do anything without putting that in. GitAhead is much smaller (Qt instead of javascript) and seems pretty nice.
08:18 PM jthornton: I'll give that a try
08:18 PM jthornton: git kracken does seem a bit bloated and fancy crap that I don't care about
08:19 PM jthornton: is merging easy with it?
08:20 PM mozmck: Well, I've only done it a couple of times now. It has some buttons for each conflict to select which one you want, and then you can open it in an editor and make manual changes. Overall it looked pretty nice.
08:21 PM mozmck: If there are no conflicts it was quite simple.
08:21 PM jthornton: ok cool I'll install it in the morning and give it a try, thanks for that info
08:22 PM mozmck: no problem. I'm not a git wizard like jepler by any means. I look stuff up often to figure out how to do something.
08:22 PM jthornton: yea he is the git command line guru for sure
08:23 PM jthornton: I have a bunch of notes about git from his help
08:36 PM andypugh: From the #246 discussion: “In any case, the start line feature is an ugly, dirty, gross and disgusting hack, and we're sure to see future problem even once this particular problem is fixed.”
08:41 PM jthornton: wow
08:50 PM andypugh: Is it time for a “formal” IRC meeting, like we ran for a while, then got bored of?
08:51 PM andypugh: We can decide what needs to be fixed prior to 2.8 release.
08:52 PM andypugh: As a general principle, I reckon anything equally broken in 2.7 and 2.8 is non-blocking. That includes “run from line”
08:53 PM andypugh: Those things do not get any more annoying as a result of the 2.8 release.
08:53 PM mozmck: True
08:53 PM andypugh: In fact, can I suggest that as a criterion: “Does releasing 2.8 make this worse”.
08:54 PM mozmck: I wonder if that run-from-line problem is the same as I had using probe moves in external file subroutines?
09:05 PM Tom_L: is run from line broke in 2.7?
09:05 PM Tom_L: i haven't had any problems with it there
09:16 PM andypugh: Well, I raised #246, but from forum posts rarther than being personally affected.
09:17 PM andypugh: I use Touchy, which will run from line only from N numbers, and I set up the post to only put an N on a toolchange.
09:17 PM Tom_L: maybe that's it... i put N numbers in all my files
09:18 PM Tom_L: just used to it
09:18 PM Tom_L: but even so, it won't work for me in 2.8
09:18 PM andypugh: It’s a choice for me, I know that :start here: is always safe at a tool change
09:18 PM Tom_L: good idea
09:19 PM Tom_L: i just look for the Tx line usually
09:20 PM andypugh: I can’t remember the details if #246, it’s been a while. I think it would be bearable if it onluy did the tool changes in the sample code, bit if the axes moves happen, then not.
09:54 PM mozmck_m: I made a simple run from line function that is selected with an INI option. It skips directly to the line selected and runs from there.