Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Issue244 remove hosts #1

Conversation

mikebentley15
Copy link

Fixes #244

This removes the [[hosts]] field from flit-config.toml. This hasn't yet been incorporated into the devel branch in PRUNERS/FLiT, but I suspect it will. This merge also brings this feature branch up to date with the devel branch found in PRUNERS/FLiT.

This is a common baseline to start from before merging our two implementations of moving the flags into the toml file.

Note: I am doing a pull request into the branch attached to your pull request. This is how I think it will be best to merge our two implementations and use your existing pull request. As you accept pull requests from me into your feature branch, your open pull request into PRUNERS/FLiT will be automatically updated to the head of your feature branch.

IanBriggs and others added 30 commits August 16, 2018 13:04
Asserts that test(all_symbols) == test(found_symbols) after all
is said and done.
This allows header files to be missing without Makefile errors
- Comment about result_queue.put() describing why it is there
- Reraise the exception so that the exception will be printed to stderr for debugging
Under --verbose, subp.Popen() is used incorrectly and can still cause a
deadlock.  This is now fixed.
mikebentley15 and others added 24 commits November 20, 2018 09:49
Apparrently the ModuleNotFoundError was introduced as a subclass of
ImportError in python 3.6.  To support older versions of python 3,
we need to catch ImportError instead
put an explanatory section saying future feature
@mikebentley15
Copy link
Author

mikebentley15 commented Nov 29, 2018

This pull request adds fixes for #225, #230, #229, #194, #238, and #244

@mikebentley15
Copy link
Author

I will be working on merging our two implementations from this merged baseline. Once this pull request is completed, I will be able to make the next pull request containing my merge of our two approaches.

Thanks again JJ.

@mikebentley15
Copy link
Author

Actually, I'll make another pull request. I didn't intend for the merge to be also in the other pull request on PRUNERS. I'll make a separate branch for doing this...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants