-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 142
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
Parallelization of Wannier functions plotting disappeared in the latest develop branch #503
Comments
I think #332 could be another victim, see #332 (comment) |
Hi Peter! Thank you for flagging this up, I will track it down... |
Thanks Peter! @JeromeCCP9 I now have a strong feeling that quite a few PRs might have been discarded. We'll have to check several of them, probably in a time range, I imagine from when you started working in the code onwards. It might be that most of them are actually lost, as you worked on top of earlier versions? |
There are I think 34 merged PRs between 3.1 and the merge of the library interface. I would check all. Hopefully about a half should be not on the code (tests, docs,...) so those should be OK. So hopefully there are not that many that could have been lost. But the others might require a bit of work to re implement in the new code structure |
yes, this is true. The corresponding commits exists in the history, but the changes are exactly undone in the current state of develop. I think this means a merge has gone wrong, which is a small nightmare. I investigate more. |
yap, I caused this in merge 6f7859e ; merging the use of types, Feb 2021. Unfortunately it is not a merge commit, so I must have rebased incorrectly. From the date, I can see that this will indeed affect a couple of other PRs. I'm so sorry about this! I work to resolve it. |
As I also mentioned in the email to @JeromeCCP9, even though #370 was merged,
wannier_plot
is not parallelized in the latest develop branch.Maybe there could be also other PRs that disappeared after merging the library mode?
FYI @jiang-yuha0 @qiaojunfeng @giovannipizzi
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: