Re: 1.0.0 is out, part II

[Pawel Salek <pawsa TheoChem kth se>]

On 2000-11-12 14:57:39 +0100 Gediminas Paulauskas wrote:
> This means we can now try to break the code and then have good time
> fixing it again! How about the first thing to add -- that threading
> code from Atsuhiko, that was discussed here last week? I have used it
> for that week and haven't encountered any problem. But it needs more
> features to be convenient. Can I commit that now?

I have had a look at the speed up part and it seems ok - the code, I mean
(although I wonder if it could not be done in a cleaner way; but this is
just a speculative first impression). 

I didn't look at the threading part and would prefer if there was a code
review from someone who would commit to take care of potential bugs in
the future (no code is perfect, we all know it). Ian, Matthew? To explain
myself, we accepted in the past some large patches (it was me who
accepted them, actually) and although they seemed very promising at the
begining, some annoying problems surfaced later and it wasn't so easy to
fix them due to the code structure. I hope this explains why I prefer to
be very careful now. I want _nobody_ to take it personally. I think we
just need code review from the structure point of view, that's all. I can
do it some time later this week, but it would be great if there were
somebody who can do it earlier.

> As I understand, we have nothing to do if we want to stay with HEAD
> CVS?

That's correct.

> Anyway, any patches to stable branch should be approved, so we don't
> want have that branch?

The stable branch can be created at any time from tagged 1.0.0 files so
this is not an issue.

/Pawel
-- 
Pawel Salek (pawsa@theochem.kth.se) http://www.theochem.kth.se/~pawsa/
Theoretical Chemistry Division, KTH voice: +46 8 790-8202