-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 373
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Use vector of integer for per-thread bool indicators (backport) #1455
Use vector of integer for per-thread bool indicators (backport) #1455
Conversation
Co-Authored-By: Hans Ekkehard Plesser <[email protected]>
@jasperalbers All necessary PRs have now been merged into master, so you can proceed with cherry-picking into this branch. |
This removes a local counter used as an exit condition for a while true loop that was never increased. It is replaced by using the correct functions of send_buffer_positions.
@heplesser I was advised by @terhorstd to create a separate pull request onto nest-2.20.1 for each of the PRs that you mentioned. Here is a complete list: for #1416 : new PR #1462 Note: @terhorstd suggested to exclude #1422, #1427 and #1430 as they are not bugfixes but rather developments not necessary for a NEST version that won't be maintained in the future. Additional note: PR #1458 addresses changes in two files that are not present in NEST 2.20, namely models/music_rate_in_proxy.h and models/music_rate_in_proxy.cpp. I assume that they are supposed to be added, which I did in #1465. |
@jasperalbers Ok with the independent PRs, I just hope we don't get problems due to dependencies between the different fixes. I have merge two of the new PRs and will merge the third once tests have gone through (timeout on Travis). @terhorstd @jasperalbers I would feel much more comfortable also to integrate #1422, #1427 and #1430, since they all were part of one development stream that led to the fix of #1394. |
…R-#1502 Backport of nest#1502 to 2.20.1
#1502 can be ticked off the list (which isn't strictly necessary anymore, all corresponding PRs can be found under the milestone 2.20.1), and this PR itself needs reviews and merging. |
@jasperalbers Please also integrate #1566, it is just a single line. |
@heplesser done in #1572. |
…R-#1566 Backport of nest#1566 to 2.20.1
@jasperalbers Thanks! Then we just need to wrap up the review of #1472 (@terhorstd), resolve the merge conflicts and be ready for the final review of this PR? |
Final updates in documentation and the debian package for v2.20.1
@jasperalbers I think we have all individual pieces for 2.20.1 in place now. Could you check and solve the merge conflicts? Then we can review and hopefully release soon. |
Co-Authored-By: Hans Ekkehard Plesser <[email protected]>
…est-simulator into nest-2.20.1-heisenbug-fix
@heplesser great! I also don't see any loose ends. I rebased my heisenbug-fix-branch to the current nest-2.20.1 and now all conflicts should be solved. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jasperalbers Looks good, just one tiny comment concerning the links to the live media.
doc/download.rst
Outdated
* `NEST live media 2.16.0 <https://nest-simulator.org/downloads/gplreleases/lubuntu-18.04_nest-2.16.0.ova>`_ | ||
|
||
`Checksum 2.16.0 <https://nest-simulator.org/downloads/gplreleases/lubuntu-18.04_nest-2.16.0.ova.sha512sum>`_ | ||
* `NEST Live Media 2.20.0 <https://nest-simulator.org/downloads/gplreleases/lubuntu-18.04_nest-2.20.0.ova>`_ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The links to 2.20.0 should also move down to "Older versions".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I moved 2.20 to older versions.
as requested by reviewer
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jasperalbers thank you!
Looks good to me. However, this PR includes many different commits. Are there any lines of code that caused merge conflicts that you found difficult to solve? I could take a look at them.
@suku248 nothing particular comes to my mind. Notice that only your 6 commits are the core of this PR, the rest is here just from rebasing to the current 2.20.1 branch and are already reviewed! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Alrighty!
cherry-picked commits from pull request #1442, resolved a minor merge conflict