On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:04:47AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On the other hand, I never did appreciate any of Lorenzo's layer work. The
> LAYER_ID was
> an incomplete solution from the day he brought it up. I voiced an objection
> at the time,
> yet gave him latitude to make the commit or
On 07/01/2014 10:44 AM, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote:
> On 01.07.2014 17:16, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> On 06/30/2014 02:34 PM, Javier Serrano wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Lorenzo Marcantonio
>>>
>>> wrote:
I see the commits. Could have be useful to know before since both me and
>>
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> Generally you should not expect me to beg to make my contributions.
Sorry to insist, but this is important for us. Neither Tom nor I asked
you to beg to make contributions. We did not even challenge your
decision to proceed after discussin
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 08:50:26AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> This is one of the use cases which argues for the fixed indices of each
> layer. If you
> first had to lookup the index, then do the flipping, it would be an extra
> step. This sort
> of answers your question below at 3). Perfo
On 07/02/2014 07:46 AM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 10:16:06AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> JP, Wayne and I developed the following working blueprint and attached
>> spreadsheet.
>> Spreadsheet from JP.
>
> OK pondered over this, here's what I think.
>> 1) Wanted 32 C
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 10:16:06AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> JP, Wayne and I developed the following working blueprint and attached
> spreadsheet.
> Spreadsheet from JP.
OK pondered over this, here's what I think.
> 1) Wanted 32 CU layers, but wanted the stack flipped to match what the
> s
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 07:14:43PM +0200, jp charras wrote:
> This explains core developers (mainly Dick who made 99% of the work)
> started and *finished* the work to expand the number of layers.
I had a lot of the job done too, at least on a trial basis. Asked for
feedback on the list and got th
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 11:00:45AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> Generally you should not expect me to beg to make my contributions. We've
> had more than
> enough discussions in the past about how to hold layers, and no agreement was
> in sight.
At least some thing on the mailing list would
<>
>>>
>>> JP, Wayne and I developed the following working blueprint and attached
>>> spreadsheet.
>>> Spreadsheet from JP.
>>
>> Dick,
>>
>> What was your reason for keeping this blueprint secret and not involving
>> CERN (as well as other important developers) in the discussion?
>>
>> I si
On 07/01/2014 10:44 AM, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote:
> On 01.07.2014 17:16, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> On 06/30/2014 02:34 PM, Javier Serrano wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Lorenzo Marcantonio
>>>
>>> wrote:
I see the commits. Could have be useful to know before since both me and
>>
On 01.07.2014 17:16, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
On 06/30/2014 02:34 PM, Javier Serrano wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Lorenzo Marcantonio
wrote:
I see the commits. Could have be useful to know before since both me and the
cern
people were already working on that.
I confirm we had a ph
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Lorenzo Marcantonio
wrote:
> I see the commits. Could have be useful to know before since both me
> and the cern people were already working on that.
I confirm we had a phone conversation with Lorenzo about this work and
were planning to write a blueprint for him
I see the commits. Could have be useful to know before since both me
and the cern people were already working on that.
Some things I don't get and other observations:
Why keep LAYER_NUM around if LAYER_ID is there? the 'incrementable'
property can be easily added to an enum (just define the opera
13 matches
Mail list logo
