dolfin team mailing list archive

["logg@xxxxxxxxx" <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 03:54:28PM -0500, Matthew Knepley wrote:
> >> Otherwise a simple solution where I think everyone would be happy
> >> would be to have one branch where the kernel is stable which is used
> >> to develop modules/applications (since they won't sabotage eachother),
> >> and one branch where the kernel is unstable, but where very little
> >> application development is done (perhaps only a few simple test
> >> cases). The two branches could then be merged at regular intervals (at
> >> releases for example).
> >
> >Do you mean that we maintain a separate branch that only gets bug fixes
> >between releases? This would of course be good to have, but then we need
> >someone to maintain it. Do you want to maintain such a branch? We could
> >put it in a separate repository (which could replace dolfin-kth) and be
> >named something more official, like dolfin-stable.
> 
> We can, of course, talk about this at the FEniCS meeting, but I
> thought I would make a point here. We do maintain this exact thing
> for PETSc. At each release, we tag the main development branch, then
> clone (branch) that to another repository.  All bug fixes are done
> in that repository, and then applied to the main line by pulling
> (patching) from the release repo and integrating the change. Its not
> hard and has saved us loads of trouble since we started doing it
> (and its easy with Mercurial :)).
> 
>   Matt

Sounds good to me, if Johan^2 are willing to do this.

/Anders