fenics team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 04:00:18PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> On Monday October 31 2011 15:20:21 Martin Alnæs wrote:
> > I'll just comment quickly on the bzr vs git workings for those who care.
> >
> > Main point: in bzr you fetch one branch at a time (afaik*), while in git
> > you often fetch a repo with multiple branches. This changes how branches
> > are used.
> >
> > *Please prove me wrong :)
>
> While this is true, you can use
>
>   bzr init-repository
>
> to connect a set of branches to a shared repor, which typically is a
> development branch. This to share space for the different branches. But AFAIK
> the shared branches are not per se connected to the development branch (repo),
> they just share most of the revisions.

Yes, I use this for sharing revisions between many branches, in
particular

  trunk
  trunk-logg
  1.0.x
  1.0.x-logg

--
Anders


> > Den 31. okt. 2011 kl. 20:51 skrev Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Martin Sandve Alnæs <martinal@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > >> On 31 October 2011 03:17, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>> Here's the "model" that I've been using on several projects with teams
> > >>> located across the globe.
> > >>>
> > >>> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
> > >>>
> > >>> There are a few differences here between the models and I don't know
> > >>> how feasible they are with bazaar.
> > >>
> > >> I see 'master' here as an alias for 'the latest tag in the latest
> > >> release branch'. We want to keep the release branches to allow easy
> > >> hotfixes towards any previous release later. I think that is valuable,
> > >> and I don't see what having the master branch solves?
> > >
> > > So this is a detail that is particular to git maybe.  Basically the
> > > master branch is a "clean" trace of the patches made to the code base.
> > > It gives a single line of how things are developed, rather than
> > > having to jump from branch to branch to see what happened.
> >
> > Ok. In bzr, -no-ff is how merge always work, so if you always merge in the
> > right direction you get the equivalent. If merges are sometimes done in
> > the 'wrong' direction, I think master could play a similar role with bzr.
> >
> > >>> 1) Feature branches for work allows for multiple people to be working
> > >>> on different parts of the code easily
> > >>
> > >> We do something like this regularly, but I think we mostly use
> > >> personal branches with no feature name though. There could be
> > >> improvements to the way we use these branches.
> > >
> > > So github does the publication of these branches really well.  For
> > > example in SymPy, we can see what people are working on by just
> > > fetching their repos.
> >
> > In bzr, you never fetch a repo, you just get a single branch. This is the
> > most important difference. But you can see on launchpad all personal
> > dolfin branches there by going to the dolfin page and clicking 'code'.
>
> I have most of the other's branches locally on my computer, and can easily
> check out what they are doing.
>
> Johan
>
> > >>> 2) Keep the hotfixes on a branches that are pulled into both the
> > >>> mainline development and the stable release
> > >>
> > >> With the model Anders posted we would do hotfixes in the release
> > >> branch and make a 1.0.x bugfix release. This would be merged into
> > >> mainline (trunk). No need for a separate hotfix branch, since the
> > >> release branch should have only bugfixes for that release.
> > >
> > > So it looks to me like a hotfix in Anders model, requires every active
> > > branch to have the patch applied.  Here you make a branch for the
> > > hotfix, review the fix, put it in the active dev and master (which is
> > > really a stable mainline), and finally delete the branch.  This model
> > > tries really hard to avoid the SVN style branches that live forever
> > > with only the dev and master being permanant.  Anders model looks to
> > > me that you will have a lot of branches in a small amount of time, but
> > > then again I could not be seeing that particular detail.
> >
> > We will have a few new branches each year, but those just stay on launchpad
> > and don't follow a repo around like in git. And branches that stay around
> > for however long we want them to is a feature in our model, allowing easy
> > hot fixes towards any previous release branch. We could delete them when
> > obsolete, but there's no value in that since they just stay on the server.
> >
> > >>> 3) Trims branches as soon as possible so you have a clear
> > >>> understanding of where work is going.
> > >>
> > >> I think we understand where work is going with the new model: Features
> > >> go into trunk, and only bugfixes in release branches.
> > >>
> > >> To reduce the cost of keeping release branches 'forever', we may mark
> > >> old releases as obsolete in launchpad at some point and stop fixing
> > >> bugs.
> > >
> > > Yes but won't they show up forever in bzr?
> >
> > Only on the launchpad server.
> >
> > >>> Anywho, my thought has always been that FEniCS model makes it
> > >>> difficult for non-(Simula + Garth's lab) to contribute.  I've actually
> > >>> had people tell me this at conferences.  But then again I've also been
> > >>> told that FEniCS doesn't want users as well.
> > >>
> > >> Not sure what the "FEniCS model" is here, but maybe that's part of the
> > >> problem?
> > >
> > > Well it could be more my problem, but more I meant "the way FEniCS is
> > > currently developed."
> >
> > We weren't all happy ourselves, so hopefully the new model is a big step in
> > the right direction.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > > -- Andy
> > >
> > >> Martin
> > >>
> > >>> -- Andy
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>> Dear all,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> There has been some concern regarding the lack of predictability in
> > >>>> FEniCS releases. Yesterday, some of us at Simula met to discuss what
> > >>>> can be done to improve the situation. The result is the following
> > >>>>
> > >>>> draft for a future development model:
> > >>>>  http://fenicsproject.org/contributing/development_model.html
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please comment on the draft and suggest corrections.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The new development model calls for a "release manager" to coordinate
> > >>>> each stable release (currently 1.0). I can volunteer to serve as
> > >>>> release manager this time. I'd be happy to step aside if someone else
> > >>>> is motivated.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I know some of you, in particular those from Simula who helped draft
> > >>>> the proposal, have already said OK, but please respond anyway for the
> > >>>> record.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> > >>> Post to     : fenics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> > >>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> > Post to     : fenics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> Post to     : fenics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp