COIN-OR::LEMON - Graph Library

Opened 10 years ago

Closed 8 years ago

#50 closed task (fixed)

Port Fibonacci, bucket and radix heaps

Reported by: alpar Owned by: deba
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 deba 9 years ago.
Port of the remaining heaps
heaps.rebundle (47.3 KB) - added by deba 9 years ago.
Rebundle

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (19)

comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by alpar

  • Milestone changed from LEMON 1.0 release to Post 1.0

comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by kpeter

  • Owner changed from alpar to kpeter
  • Status changed from new to assigned

comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by kpeter

  • Milestone LEMON 1.1 release deleted

comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by alpar

  • Milestone set to LEMON 1.2 release

Changed 9 years ago by deba

Port of the remaining heaps

comment:5 follow-up: Changed 9 years ago by 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.

comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by kpeter

  • Owner changed from kpeter to deba
  • Status changed from assigned to new

comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 5 ; follow-up: Changed 9 years ago by 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.

Changed 9 years ago by deba

Rebundle

comment:8 in reply to: ↑ 7 ; follow-up: Changed 9 years ago by deba

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 ; follow-up: Changed 9 years ago by 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.

comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 Changed 9 years ago by deba

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed

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 follow-up: Changed 8 years ago by alpar

  • Resolution fixed deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

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 8 years ago by alpar

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 follow-up: Changed 8 years ago by 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.

comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 13 ; follow-up: Changed 8 years ago by 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.

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 ; follow-up: Changed 8 years ago by kpeter

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 8 years ago by alpar

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 8 years ago by alpar

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from reopened to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.