COIN-OR::LEMON - Graph Library

Opened 11 years ago

Closed 9 years ago

#50 closed task (fixed)

Port Fibonacci, bucket and radix heaps

Reported by: Alpar Juttner Owned by: Balazs Dezso
Priority: major Milestone: LEMON 1.2 release
Component: core Version:
Keywords: Cc:
Revision id:

Description

The affected files are

  • test/heap_test.cc
  • lemon/radix_heap.h
  • lemon/fib_heap.h
  • lemon/bucket_heap.h

Attachments (2)

heap.bundle (29.9 KB) - added by Balazs Dezso 10 years ago.
Port of the remaining heaps
heaps.rebundle (47.3 KB) - added by Balazs Dezso 10 years ago.
Rebundle

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (19)

comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by Alpar Juttner

Milestone: LEMON 1.0 releasePost 1.0

comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by Peter Kovacs

Owner: changed from Alpar Juttner to Peter Kovacs
Status: newassigned

comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by Peter Kovacs

Milestone: LEMON 1.1 release

comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by Alpar Juttner

Milestone: LEMON 1.2 release

Changed 10 years ago by Balazs Dezso

Attachment: heap.bundle added

Port of the remaining heaps

comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by Balazs Dezso

The port of the remaining heaps can be found in the heap.bundle file. The implementation of the BucketHeap? also simplified, it does not contain code duplications.

comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by Peter Kovacs

Owner: changed from Peter Kovacs to Balazs Dezso
Status: assignednew

comment:7 in reply to:  5 ; Changed 10 years ago by Alpar Juttner

Replying to deba:

The port of the remaining heaps can be found in the heap.bundle file. The implementation of the BucketHeap? also simplified, it does not contain code duplications.

Unfortunately, these changesets (especially the doc changes in the last one) now conflicts with the current tip version of LEMON. Could you please rebase them to the tip of the main branch? In addition, please put a reference to this ticket in the commit log of each chgsets.

Thanks.

Changed 10 years ago by Balazs Dezso

Attachment: heaps.rebundle added

Rebundle

comment:8 in reply to:  7 ; Changed 10 years ago by Balazs Dezso

Replying to alpar:

Replying to deba:

The port of the remaining heaps can be found in the heap.bundle file. The implementation of the BucketHeap? also simplified, it does not contain code duplications.

Unfortunately, these changesets (especially the doc changes in the last one) now conflicts with the current tip version of LEMON. Could you please rebase them to the tip of the main branch? In addition, please put a reference to this ticket in the commit log of each chgsets.

Thanks.

I have uploaded a new bundle, however the last changeset differs from the original.

comment:9 in reply to:  8 ; Changed 9 years ago by Alpar Juttner

Replying to deba:

I have uploaded a new bundle, however the last changeset differs from the original.

heaps.rebundle does not contain any heap related chgset. Also, you'd better use the extension .bundle for bundle files.

comment:10 in reply to:  9 Changed 9 years ago by Balazs Dezso

Resolution: fixed
Status: newclosed

Replying to alpar:

Replying to deba:

I have uploaded a new bundle, however the last changeset differs from the original.

heaps.rebundle does not contain any heap related chgset. Also, you'd better use the extension .bundle for bundle files.

Several additional changesets were included into the bundle (I think I used wrong base repository), but it contains [532697c9fa53], [bb8c4cd57900] and [9f529abcaebf]. All of them are already applied. I close this ticket.

comment:11 Changed 9 years ago by Alpar Juttner

Resolution: fixed
Status: closedreopened

Ops. I've just noticed that [532697c9fa53], [bb8c4cd57900] and [9f529abcaebf] are also merged into the 1.0 branch. Does anyone an idea why are they there?

comment:12 in reply to:  11 Changed 9 years ago by Alpar Juttner

Replying to alpar:

Ops. I've just noticed that [532697c9fa53], [bb8c4cd57900] and [9f529abcaebf] are also merged into the 1.0 branch. Does anyone an idea why are they there?

I mean branch 1.1. Sorry.

comment:13 Changed 9 years ago by Peter Kovacs

I think it was done by accident, when the bugfix #330 [e9c203fb003d] was merged. That patch was merged into the main and should have been merged into the release branch 1.1, but it seems that the merge changeset from the main branch [994c7df296c9] was merged into the 1.1 branch, which also brought these patches and [703ebf476a1d] from #312. Neither of them would be important for the 1.1 branch, I think.

comment:14 in reply to:  13 ; Changed 9 years ago by Alpar Juttner

Replying to kpeter:

I think it was done by accident, when the bugfix #330 [e9c203fb003d] was merged. That patch was merged into the main and should have been merged into the release branch 1.1, but it seems that the merge changeset from the main branch [994c7df296c9] was merged into the 1.1 branch, which also brought these patches and [703ebf476a1d] from #312. Neither of them would be important for the 1.1 branch, I think.

The changesets [532697c9fa53], [bb8c4cd57900] and [9f529abcaebf] implement new features, so we certainly want to exclude them from branch 1.1.

What about [703ebf476a1d]? Shall we consider it as a "unnecessary bugfix" (thus keep it) or do we want to get rid of it, too?

comment:15 in reply to:  14 ; Changed 9 years ago by Peter Kovacs

Replying to alpar:

Replying to kpeter:

I think it was done by accident, when the bugfix #330 [e9c203fb003d] was merged. That patch was merged into the main and should have been merged into the release branch 1.1, but it seems that the merge changeset from the main branch [994c7df296c9] was merged into the 1.1 branch, which also brought these patches and [703ebf476a1d] from #312. Neither of them would be important for the 1.1 branch, I think.

The changesets [532697c9fa53], [bb8c4cd57900] and [9f529abcaebf] implement new features, so we certainly want to exclude them from branch 1.1.

I agree.

What about [703ebf476a1d]? Shall we consider it as a "unnecessary bugfix" (thus keep it) or do we want to get rid of it, too?

It is not clear whether it is a bugfix or an enhancement. Even if it is a bugfix, it is clearly not so important, it could be removed from branch 1.1.

comment:16 in reply to:  15 Changed 9 years ago by Alpar Juttner

Replying to kpeter:

The changesets [532697c9fa53], [bb8c4cd57900] and [9f529abcaebf] implement new features, so we certainly want to exclude them from branch 1.1.

I agree.

What about [703ebf476a1d]? Shall we consider it as a "unnecessary bugfix" (thus keep it) or do we want to get rid of it, too?

It is not clear whether it is a bugfix or an enhancement. Even if it is a bugfix, it is clearly not so important, it could be removed from branch 1.1.

Good. All the four changesets has been backed out from 1.1, see [37f440367057].

comment:17 Changed 9 years ago by Alpar Juttner

Resolution: fixed
Status: reopenedclosed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.