On 07/24/2014 09:50 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 24.07.2014 11:42, schrieb James Holsenback:
>> On 07/24/2014 05:29 AM, scott wrote:
>>>>> To disable caching, just add the keyword "no_cache" to the radiosity
>>>>> block. Make sure to not set the "count" parameter too high - a
>>>>> value as
>>>>> low as 10 is perfectly ok for this approach.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm ... I'm getting an error
>>>>
>>>> File 'Work.pov' line 86: Parse Error: No matching } in 'radiosity',
>>>> undeclared
>>>>   identifier 'no_cache' found instead
>>>> Fatal error in parser: Cannot parse input.
>>>> Render failed
>>>
>>> Hmmm works OK here - are you sure you're running the latest executable?
>>>
>>
>> relatively sure ... i already had git repo defined so all i had to do
>> was: git pull develop develop to update. make was showing the same
>> warnings that I reported in "Perfect Polish" thread, and version shows:
>> UberPOV 1.37-dev
>
> "UberPOV 1.37-dev" can be virtually anything; I suggest fetching the
> official v1.37.0.0-beta.6 sources.
>
> (Or pull the develop branch again... it so happens that I hadn't pushed
> the latest changes to that branch yet, just the master branch. Whoops.)
>

Hmmmm ... when I'm looking at: 
https://github.com/UberPOV/UberPOV/tree/develop

I see this hash:
784444e26b841d91118af7ca26a5f1ffefe60dbc

with this description:
Merge branch 'release/v1.37.0.0-beta.6' into develop

time stamped 13hrs ago

so doing 'git pull develop develop' /should/ have done trick.

Post a reply to this message

On 07/24/2014 11:47 AM, James Holsenback wrote:
> On 07/24/2014 09:50 AM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 24.07.2014 11:42, schrieb James Holsenback:
>>> On 07/24/2014 05:29 AM, scott wrote:
>>>>>> To disable caching, just add the keyword "no_cache" to the radiosity
>>>>>> block. Make sure to not set the "count" parameter too high - a
>>>>>> value as
>>>>>> low as 10 is perfectly ok for this approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm ... I'm getting an error
>>>>>
>>>>> File 'Work.pov' line 86: Parse Error: No matching } in 'radiosity',
>>>>> undeclared
>>>>>   identifier 'no_cache' found instead
>>>>> Fatal error in parser: Cannot parse input.
>>>>> Render failed
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm works OK here - are you sure you're running the latest executable?
>>>>
>>>
>>> relatively sure ... i already had git repo defined so all i had to do
>>> was: git pull develop develop to update. make was showing the same
>>> warnings that I reported in "Perfect Polish" thread, and version shows:
>>> UberPOV 1.37-dev
>>
>> "UberPOV 1.37-dev" can be virtually anything; I suggest fetching the
>> official v1.37.0.0-beta.6 sources.
>>
>> (Or pull the develop branch again... it so happens that I hadn't pushed
>> the latest changes to that branch yet, just the master branch. Whoops.)
>>
>
> Hmmmm ... when I'm looking at:
> https://github.com/UberPOV/UberPOV/tree/develop
>
> I see this hash:
> 784444e26b841d91118af7ca26a5f1ffefe60dbc
>
> with this description:
> Merge branch 'release/v1.37.0.0-beta.6' into develop
>
> time stamped 13hrs ago
>
> so doing 'git pull develop develop' /should/ have done trick.

my local repo must have gotten out of sync because i nuked it then 
reinitialized it and now uberpov --version returns:

UberPOV 1.37.0.0-beta.6

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.07.2014 17:47, schrieb James Holsenback:

> Hmmmm ... when I'm looking at:
> https://github.com/UberPOV/UberPOV/tree/develop
>
> I see this hash:
> 784444e26b841d91118af7ca26a5f1ffefe60dbc
>
> with this description:
> Merge branch 'release/v1.37.0.0-beta.6' into develop
>
> time stamped 13hrs ago

Yes - that's indeed when I did the merge...
.. Locally.

> so doing 'git pull develop develop' /should/ have done trick.

if you had pulled right from my local computer, then yes :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 07/24/2014 01:10 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 24.07.2014 17:47, schrieb James Holsenback:
>
>> Hmmmm ... when I'm looking at:
>> https://github.com/UberPOV/UberPOV/tree/develop
>>
>> I see this hash:
>> 784444e26b841d91118af7ca26a5f1ffefe60dbc
>>
>> with this description:
>> Merge branch 'release/v1.37.0.0-beta.6' into develop
>>
>> time stamped 13hrs ago
>
> Yes - that's indeed when I did the merge...
> .. Locally.
>
>> so doing 'git pull develop develop' /should/ have done trick.
>
> if you had pulled right from my local computer, then yes :-P
>

ruh???

Post a reply to this message

On 07/24/2014 01:10 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 24.07.2014 17:47, schrieb James Holsenback:
>
>> Hmmmm ... when I'm looking at:
>> https://github.com/UberPOV/UberPOV/tree/develop
>>
>> I see this hash:
>> 784444e26b841d91118af7ca26a5f1ffefe60dbc
>>
>> with this description:
>> Merge branch 'release/v1.37.0.0-beta.6' into develop
>>
>> time stamped 13hrs ago
>
> Yes - that's indeed when I did the merge...
> .. Locally.
>
>> so doing 'git pull develop develop' /should/ have done trick.
>
> if you had pulled right from my local computer, then yes :-P
>

just got your meaning ... ok, so i'm slow today :-P

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.07.2014 19:15, schrieb James Holsenback:
> On 07/24/2014 01:10 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 24.07.2014 17:47, schrieb James Holsenback:
>>
>>> Hmmmm ... when I'm looking at:
>>> https://github.com/UberPOV/UberPOV/tree/develop
>>>
>>> I see this hash:
>>> 784444e26b841d91118af7ca26a5f1ffefe60dbc
>>>
>>> with this description:
>>> Merge branch 'release/v1.37.0.0-beta.6' into develop
>>>
>>> time stamped 13hrs ago
>>
>> Yes - that's indeed when I did the merge...
>> .. Locally.
>>
>>> so doing 'git pull develop develop' /should/ have done trick.
>>
>> if you had pulled right from my local computer, then yes :-P
>>
>
> ruh???

Okay, I take this as an indication that you're not /too/ familiar with 
the distributed nature of the Git revision control system. ;-)

In contrast to Perforce, where you only have one central repository, in 
Git you have plenty of them. And none of them is any more authoritative 
than the other.

When you do a "git pull", you're actually performing a (unidirectional) 
sync of a local repository on your machine with whatever repository you 
told git to typically sync with; that means you apply to your local repo 
all the commits to the remote ("origin") repo since the previous pull. 
(Note that this requires that you haven't made any changes to the 
respective branch in your local repo. If that happens, you need to 
reconcile the two repos by applying a merge to both.)

(Note that your local working directory is /not/ your local repo. The 
local repo instead resides in the ".git" directory therein.)

Likewise, I also have a local repo on my machine (I actually can't avoid 
that). When I make changes to the code, I first commit them to the local 
repo. I can also merge branches in the local repo. Only when I'm happy 
with it all, I will "push" the local changes to the remote repo on 
GitHub, i.e. apply all the local commits to the "origin" repo. (Again 
this requires that nobody else has made any changes to the respective 
branch on the origin repo. If that happens, a reconciliatory merge is 
required again.)

It's also possible to propagate commits between repos "sideways", i.e. 
without one of the repos being the "origin" of the other, provided that 
there is /some/ common history in both repos; any history in between 
will automatically be propagated as well.

When changes are propagated from one repo to another, the original 
information of that change is propagated as well, including the time and 
date of the commit.

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.07.2014 19:48, schrieb James Holsenback:
> On 07/24/2014 01:10 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 24.07.2014 17:47, schrieb James Holsenback:
>>
>>> Hmmmm ... when I'm looking at:
>>> https://github.com/UberPOV/UberPOV/tree/develop
>>>
>>> I see this hash:
>>> 784444e26b841d91118af7ca26a5f1ffefe60dbc
>>>
>>> with this description:
>>> Merge branch 'release/v1.37.0.0-beta.6' into develop
>>>
>>> time stamped 13hrs ago
>>
>> Yes - that's indeed when I did the merge...
>> .. Locally.
>>
>>> so doing 'git pull develop develop' /should/ have done trick.
>>
>> if you had pulled right from my local computer, then yes :-P
>>
>
> just got your meaning ... ok, so i'm slow today :-P

Well, in this case you were actually faster than I was, at least as far 
as the pulling and pushing is concerned ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 07/24/2014 01:52 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 24.07.2014 19:15, schrieb James Holsenback:
>> On 07/24/2014 01:10 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 24.07.2014 17:47, schrieb James Holsenback:
>>>
>>>> Hmmmm ... when I'm looking at:
>>>> https://github.com/UberPOV/UberPOV/tree/develop
>>>>
>>>> I see this hash:
>>>> 784444e26b841d91118af7ca26a5f1ffefe60dbc
>>>>
>>>> with this description:
>>>> Merge branch 'release/v1.37.0.0-beta.6' into develop
>>>>
>>>> time stamped 13hrs ago
>>>
>>> Yes - that's indeed when I did the merge...
>>> .. Locally.
>>>
>>>> so doing 'git pull develop develop' /should/ have done trick.
>>>
>>> if you had pulled right from my local computer, then yes :-P
>>>
>>
>> ruh???
>
> Okay, I take this as an indication that you're not /too/ familiar with
> the distributed nature of the Git revision control system. ;-)

nope you'd be wrong ... aware of .git directory, it get's created for 
the 1st time when 'git init' is issued. contains all kind of useful info 
about what revision (commits) have been pulled, so that when 'git pull 
develop develop' is all that's needed to get updates. as i eluded in 
other responses think i simply pulled before you had a chance to update 
the 'develop' branch ... i'm good to go

Post a reply to this message

On 24-7-2014 19:55, clipka wrote:
> Well, in this case you were actually faster than I was, at least as far
> as the pulling and pushing is concerned ;-)
>

Hey guys, cool down! Stop that pushing and pulling around now! Somebody 
is going to get hurt! :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.07.2014 09:23, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 24-7-2014 19:55, clipka wrote:
>> Well, in this case you were actually faster than I was, at least as far
>> as the pulling and pushing is concerned ;-)
>>
>
> Hey guys, cool down! Stop that pushing and pulling around now! Somebody
> is going to get hurt! :-)

Only the code, Thomas. Only the code...

Post a reply to this message