On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:51 AM, case <case.biomaps.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2010, Scott Brozell wrote:
> >
> > And the answer is ... it's not standard conforming code and is a
> > lurking bug.
>
> It is still my view that "lurking bugs" don't qualify for bugfixes..this is
> the sort of thing that has always been folded into subsequent releases.
> Changing the code always presents some danger of breaking things,
> especially
> since it's easy for patch files to become inconsistent with the the
> (possibly
>
This seems to be a bigger risk way back in the days of CVS. With how easy
it is to create new branches, and the fact that we have an amber11 branch, I
think makes it easier to create consistent patches from a static code base,
as long as changes that are NOT turned into patches are not added to that
tree. That being said, I don't want to add anything to the amber11 tree
that will NOT turn into a bug fix, so should I unstage and discard the fix
that I made to my local amber11 tree rather than pushing it?
> modified) code that some user might have. But by all means, please fix
> problems in git.
>
They're fixed in my local copy, but it's in the midst of other, incomplete,
changes I have. I'll upload everything when I'm done(ish) and it's working.
Thanks!
Jason
>
> ....dac
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER-Developers mailing list
> AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
>
--
Jason M. Swails
Quantum Theory Project,
University of Florida
Ph.D. Graduate Student
352-392-4032
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Fri Oct 01 2010 - 05:30:03 PDT
