On 26 March 2016 at 20:24, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Christopher Jefferson
> wrote:
>
>> If it is acceptable to ignore the citing requirement,
>
> I have tried to see if I could come up with a scenario where a
> respectable scientist would not cite sources that he used f
2016-03-27 11:20 GMT+02:00 Christopher Jefferson :
> If I used parallel to simply speed up a set of analysis of data? Then
> I would not cite it, in the same way I wouldn't cite xargs
This is actually what 'parallel' does for most people: Replacing xargs to
get more speed
parallel in it self d
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Christopher Jefferson
wrote:
:
> Would I cite 'parallel' if it was an integral part of my research
> project (for example, a parallelisation project)? Of course! Further,
> if I reported times taken I would cite parallel, as it would be an
> integral part of recre
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
:
> One note: can the tarball also be supplied as tar.xz? I checked and it reduces
> the size quite a bit.
I have considered that.
I get 1053860 (xz) vs. 1265407 (bz2). So a saving of 200 KB. Less than
a photo these days.
GNU Parallel prides i
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Pariksheet Nanda
wrote:
> I'm using GNU Parallel version 20150810 when both --joblog and --dryrun
> together. This has the side effect of recording the dryrun as "successful"
> in the joblog.
Fixed in current release.
/Ole
Hi Ole,
thanks for your reply.
On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 20:00:57 +0200
Ole Tange wrote:
> All in all I come to the conclusion that the benefits are small and
> the downsides are just a bit bigger than the benefits. So for the
> foreseeable future there will not be an extra format.
>
I see. I unders
On 27 March 2016 at 18:26, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Christopher Jefferson
> wrote:
> :
>> Would I cite 'parallel' if it was an integral part of my research
>> project (for example, a parallelisation project)? Of course! Further,
>> if I reported times taken I would cit
On 27 March 2016 at 23:35, Christopher Jefferson
wrote:
> I am happy to accept that, but I feel that this requirement violates
> the GPL, the GPL FAQ specifically covers this case:
>
>
Nope.
I don't think you are right saying that the GPL FAQ in this section
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.e
This is great that it works to some extent in the git version. For my
application I don't need wrapping behavior too and probably there are a
bunch of others who don't need. I'll check the git version, thanks.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 6:07 PM,
