Re: GSoc 2016: Final Reviews required

[Juan Pablo Carbajal]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:42 PM, John Swensen <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 22, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Philip Nienhuis <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Juan Pablo Carbajal-2 wrote
>>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:35 AM, PhilipNienhuis &lt;
>>
>>> pr.nienhuis@
>>
>>> &gt; wrote:
>>>> JuanPi, how would  you like development to proceed further?
>>>> Amr has finished his work but polishing the code for error checks etc. is
>>>> still required. Such (input) error checks do not look very difficult and
>>>> can
>>>> be copied from other code in octave.
>>>> The error catching (= avoiding crashes) is probably more challenging.
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I will keep apologizing for my lack of reaction.
>>> I think the best is to merge with geometry asap (there is also APi
>>> issues to solve) and continue fixing from there on.
>>>
>>> I could make a bitbucket repo to ease the merging, or somebody with
>>> push rights to SF could do it, if the time is pressing and you can't
>>> wait for a window in my schedule.
>>
>> Amr already "merged", his repo contains a complete geometry-3.0.0 AFAICS
>>
>> Is there really so much hurry? Any insights on when you will have time for
>> some review?
>>
>> I can do some basic stuff like pushing to the OF repo. But my time is
>> limited as well, so it will be by little parts at a time in the next weeks.
>> There's also the divide between mapping and geometry and some duplicate
>> functionality; I can sort that out for you as well then.
>>
>> Philip
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: 
>> http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/GSoc-2016-Final-Reviews-required-tp4679299p4679410.html
>> Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
> I have been asking Amr for at least two more items before I pass off on the 
> GSoC:
>
> 1) include all the benchmarking tests that he converted from the ClipperLib 
> website into the repository and his other basic tests. We can potentially run 
> these as part of a ‘make test’ target.
> 2) Make a really nice final blog post that shows visually all the 
> functionality that was added. This involves a couple of set of demonstration 
> images showing the two input polygons used and the results of UNION, 
> INTERSECT, DIFFERENCE, XOR. Since a lot of people aren’t going to wade 
> through C++ code to see what was accomplished (or even read the Readme.md in 
> the repository), a really well-documented final blog post will let Octave 
> users see what has been added.
>
That can also be added to http://wiki.octave.org/Geometry_package
> John S.
>
>