Added protection against probabilistic wiring to spike_detector (fixes #351) #560

Merged
merged 5 commits into from Dec 19, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@heplesser
Contributor

heplesser commented Nov 22, 2016

This adresses #351 .

I suggest @hannahbos and @jougs as reviewers.

@mention-bot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mention-bot

mention-bot Nov 22, 2016

@heplesser, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @otizonaizit, @sdiazpier and @tammoippen to be potential reviewers.

@heplesser, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @otizonaizit, @sdiazpier and @tammoippen to be potential reviewers.

@heplesser heplesser added this to the NEST 2.12 milestone Nov 22, 2016

@heplesser heplesser changed the title from Added protection against probabilistic wiring to spike_detector to Added protection against probabilistic wiring to spike_detector (fixes #531) Nov 22, 2016

@heplesser heplesser changed the title from Added protection against probabilistic wiring to spike_detector (fixes #531) to Added protection against probabilistic wiring to spike_detector (fixes #351) Nov 22, 2016

heplesser added some commits Dec 12, 2016

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/nest/nest-simulator into …
…fix351-random-conn-to-devices

# Conflicts:
#	nestkernel/conn_builder.h
@mschmidt87

I don't have anything to complain. I just wonder if the commit touching .gitignore is supposed to be in this pull-request.

.gitignore
@@ -56,3 +56,4 @@ doc/normaldoc.conf
lib/sli/rcsinfo.sli
extras/emacs/sli.el
extras/nest_vars.sh
+*.pyc

This comment has been minimized.

@mschmidt87

mschmidt87 Dec 13, 2016

Why is this part of the pull request

@mschmidt87

mschmidt87 Dec 13, 2016

Why is this part of the pull request

@heplesser

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@heplesser

heplesser Dec 13, 2016

Contributor

@mschmidt87 .pyc files should certainly be ignored by Git. I, as probably many other users, had *.pyc in my global gitignore file. After that file caused problems in a different context (not related to pyc at all), I decided not to have a global gitignore file any more. As a consequence, I needed to add *.pyc to project .gitignore files, and this branch was simply the first I committed to after I deleted by global gitignore.

Contributor

heplesser commented Dec 13, 2016

@mschmidt87 .pyc files should certainly be ignored by Git. I, as probably many other users, had *.pyc in my global gitignore file. After that file caused problems in a different context (not related to pyc at all), I decided not to have a global gitignore file any more. As a consequence, I needed to add *.pyc to project .gitignore files, and this branch was simply the first I committed to after I deleted by global gitignore.

@mschmidt87

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mschmidt87

mschmidt87 Dec 13, 2016

Maybe I am missing something here, but isn't *.pyc already included in .gitignore, precisely in line 12? So, adding it another time shouldn't be necessary, should it?

Maybe I am missing something here, but isn't *.pyc already included in .gitignore, precisely in line 12? So, adding it another time shouldn't be necessary, should it?

@heplesser

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@heplesser

heplesser Dec 13, 2016

Contributor

@mschmidt87 I guess my 351-branch didn't contain all merges from master and thus didn't have the *.pyc on line 12. I have now removed the duplicate *.pyc.

Contributor

heplesser commented Dec 13, 2016

@mschmidt87 I guess my 351-branch didn't contain all merges from master and thus didn't have the *.pyc on line 12. I have now removed the duplicate *.pyc.

@mschmidt87

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mschmidt87

mschmidt87 Dec 14, 2016

I am not sure how picky we are in general with these things, but it would be cleaner if you would throw away the commits touching .gitignore e.g. by cherry-picking just the first commit of this PR or rebasing. This way, .gitignore would remain completely untouched (currently, you're adding an empty line to the file) and we wouldn't have the unnecessary commits in the history.

mschmidt87 commented Dec 14, 2016

I am not sure how picky we are in general with these things, but it would be cleaner if you would throw away the commits touching .gitignore e.g. by cherry-picking just the first commit of this PR or rebasing. This way, .gitignore would remain completely untouched (currently, you're adding an empty line to the file) and we wouldn't have the unnecessary commits in the history.

@hannahbos

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hannahbos

hannahbos Dec 19, 2016

Great. Thanks! 👍

hannahbos commented Dec 19, 2016

Great. Thanks! 👍

@heplesser

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@heplesser

heplesser Dec 19, 2016

Contributor

@mschmidt87 You are right that my changes to .gitignore will leave a bit of unnecessary back-and-forth in NEST history, but at present I would prioritize completion of milestone 2.12 and robustness before history neatness. I am also afraid that attempts at cherry-picking/rebasing might introduce even more of mess, so I hope you are willing to approve this PR as it is?

Contributor

heplesser commented Dec 19, 2016

@mschmidt87 You are right that my changes to .gitignore will leave a bit of unnecessary back-and-forth in NEST history, but at present I would prioritize completion of milestone 2.12 and robustness before history neatness. I am also afraid that attempts at cherry-picking/rebasing might introduce even more of mess, so I hope you are willing to approve this PR as it is?

@mschmidt87

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mschmidt87

mschmidt87 Dec 19, 2016

Okay, sure. 👍
I guess, rebasing would be complicated here, because there are some merge commits from master.

mschmidt87 commented Dec 19, 2016

Okay, sure. 👍
I guess, rebasing would be complicated here, because there are some merge commits from master.

@heplesser heplesser merged commit 9103618 into nest:master Dec 19, 2016

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

@heplesser heplesser deleted the heplesser:fix351-random-conn-to-devices branch Dec 20, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment