search for: disincentives

> If they choose to continue with only EXE, > I will just keep using other programming languages. I did agree with your original suggestion. However, I don't think that a lack of zip formats, is a disincentive from using R. If you have an issue with the Windows installer, the obvious option is to install the source version, and compile from it. This is, after all, how open source is

On Thursday 01 April 2010 06:30:46 Torvald Riegel wrote: > > No! Just put a repository up (or make a tarball)! This is open source. > > Code is never perfect, so just put it out there with the same BSD-style > > license as LLVM. Every programmer can read code, even bad code, > > especially when there's a research paper or thesis to go along with it. > > Every

John Criswell wrote: > I think before we begin discussing which software to use, we should > discuss what is really wrong with CVS (on a day to day basis) and how > important it is to fix it (and I apologize if it has been discussed; I > just haven't seen it discussed in this thread). I turned down the priviledge of having write access to the CVS because of problems with the

Reid Spencer wrote: > LLVMers, > > The oversight group has been kicking around the idea of getting a better > version control system than CVS. The problem is, we're not quite sure > what "better" means. So, we thought we'd ask your opinions. I think before we begin discussing which software to use, we should discuss what is really wrong with CVS (on a day to

On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 08:58, Jeff Cohen wrote: > On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:39:23 -0700 > Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > > > Yes, in fact I'd be daring enough to suggest that it be the standard. > > We'll have fewer compilation problems with VC++ 2005 because it is > > (supposedly) more standards compliant than previous versions. Please use >

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:39:23 -0700 Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > Yes, in fact I'd be daring enough to suggest that it be the standard. > We'll have fewer compilation problems with VC++ 2005 because it is > (supposedly) more standards compliant than previous versions. Please use > this download: While this may be true, it's not a realistic request. Even

On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 00:17, Paolo Invernizzi wrote: > On Sep 15, 2004, at 8:40 AM, Henrik Bach wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Has some one committed these patches into CVS? > > Not yet... checked 10 minutes ago... Hopefully Chris will get to it today (Wednesday). > I'm attaching the cvs diff -u version of them (I've read Reid Spencer > post about it)

...ubqueue we now have constant per sub-subqueue, so something like 128 => 128 x 20) - double the time for two lookups - nontrivial change in code. Of course, the temptation would be to make the code work with n levels. So far I''ve been able to get by without it. That, along with the disincentives above account for it remaining on the queue for so long. Some day I''ll need it. If I''m lucky someone else will get there before me.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:18:01 -0700 Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > Again, while I can sympathize, this problem doesn't affect LLVM because > we have no legacy of compiling on Win32. Well, these were reasons why it takes so long for newer versions to catch on. Obviously they don't apply to LLVM. Yet :) > > And don't even think of doing this near the end

Hello, I posted a question yesterday but I got no replies, so I'll try to reformulate it in a more concise way. I have the following data, summarizing approval ratings on two different surveys for a random sample of 1600 individuals: > ## Example: Ratings of prime minister (Agresti, Table 12.1, p.494) > rating <- matrix(c(794, 86, 150, 570), 2, 2) > dimnames(rating) <-

LLVM Community, > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-July/041738.html This was extraordinarily valuable in learning to understand the situation - thank you David Blaikie for pointing me to it. A few key snippets: "Because I optimize for the code reviewer, not the patch submitter," Chris Lattner "Forcing transitioning to git makes no sense for a lot of us - for

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > My interpretations, which later in this long email, I'll assume as > premises to a recommended action: > > * Chris finds code reviewers to be exceptionally rare and the > community's most valuable participants. My previous "spork" > suggestion would be a decision made my

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:04 PM Duncan Murdoch wrote: > I don't recall anyone asking for the zip in the 17 years after that > change, until now (though I haven't been paying attention lately, since > I retired from building the binaries a couple of years ago). > > If you think it's worthwhile to do it, then I don't think anyone would > object if you went ahead and

John, Here's my list: 1. CVS is slow. Many of the other tools do bi-directional binary deltas on file changes they are transmitting. This is basically the technology that makes rsync so fast. CVS doesn't do this. Probably not a big deal when you're working at UIUC but its CRUCIAL when I'm on the road working from a hotel or airport wi-fi connection. 2. Related to 1 is diff

We recently committed to replacing our Netware server with a Samba server running on an old SPARC box (using RedHat 6.0). This seemed like a good idea at the time, but now I'm wondering... We have two labs of PCs (each of 16 machines, all running Windows 95) and we use PC-Rdist to ensure that the hard disk images on the PCs are kept fairly clean and up-to-date. The master disk images are

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dehao Chen" <dehao at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com>, "llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 11:43:41 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] (RFC) Encoding code duplication factor

Hi all, My 2 cents as well: Here where I work (The MathWorks), we have hundreds of developers. We use CVS but we've had to write several thousand lines of Perl to make it useful to us (through revisions, branching, testing, and integration). Mercifully, we're planning on going to another system. In short, CVS doesn't scale well. It also doesn't having good branching capabilities

LLVMers, The oversight group has been kicking around the idea of getting a better version control system than CVS. The problem is, we're not quite sure what "better" means. So, we thought we'd ask your opinions. If you're interested in this topic (and you should be if you're actively developing), please have a look at this site:

On Sunday 28 March 2010 16:39:44 llvmdev at erichocean.oib.com wrote: > To the list: > > Tons of LLVM research is being done that is damn near worthless to anyone > but the person who did it because the team doesn't publish supporting code > or even describe at a high level description of the algorithms they're > using. And the excuse is always, ALWAYS the same:

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dehao Chen" <dehao at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com>, "llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 1:24:01 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] (RFC) Encoding code duplication factor in