fenics team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:30:49PM +0100, Florian Rathgeber wrote:
> On 08/04/13 22:13, Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 07:14:51PM +0100, Florian Rathgeber wrote:
> >> On 08/04/13 18:14, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 05:44:19PM +0100, Florian Rathgeber wrote:
> >>>> On 08/04/13 11:40, Florian Rathgeber wrote:
> >>>>> On 08/04/13 08:46, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>>>>> The conversion to git is now complete. (Thanks again to Florian
> >>>>>> for helping us out with the scripting!) Here are some initial
> >>>>>> instructions for how to access the new code.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - The new repositories can be found here:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://bitbucket.org/fenics-project
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - The repositories (here DOLFIN) can be cloned by:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> git clone https://bitbucket.org/fenics-project/dolfin.git
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Developers with write access should use:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> git clone git@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:fenics-project/dolfin.git
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There's no harm always cloning via SSH.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> - A full 1.2 GB archive of all the repositories, before and after
> >>>>>> conversion, before and after filtering, including all feature
> >>>>>> branches hosted on Launchpad can be downloaded from here:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://fenicsproject.org/pub/archive/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Developers of feature branches should be able to clone their
> >>>>>> feature branches in git from the above address, push to bitbucket,
> >>>>>> and make pull requests.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To be clear: We have migrated all feature branches for all FEniCS
> >>>>> projects as they were on launchpad on Friday afternoon. So if your
> >>>>> branch was up-to-date on launchpad you don't need to do any conversion
> >>>>> yourself (in fact you shouldn't).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A DOLFIN branch lp:~user/dolfin/mybranch has been converted to the git
> >>>>> branch user/mybranch (similar for the other projects i.e. the project
> >>>>> name has been left out).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To get your branch (again assuming DOLFIN), do the following:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> # clone DOLFIN (only contains the master branch, formerly trunk)
> >>>>> $ git clone git@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:fenics-project/dolfin.git
> >>>>> $ cd dolfin
> >>>>>
> >>>>> # Add a git remote called archive and select only your specific branch
> >>>>> $ git remote add -t user/mybranch archive
> >>>>> http://fenicsproject.org/pub/archive/fenics-bzr-to-git-conversion-2013/repositories/git/dolfin.filtered.git
> >>>>> $ git fetch archive
> >>>>>
> >>>>> # List local and remote branches
> >>>>> $ git branch -av
> >>>>>
> >>>>> # Look at the history graph and check your branch's ancestry is correct
> >>>>> $ git log --graph --oneline --annotate --decorate --all
> >>>>>
> >>>>> # If everything is fine, check out your branch and profit!
> >>>>> $ git checkout user/mybranch
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you want to pull down multiple branches or don't remember your
> >>>>> branch names you can also fetch all branches by omitting the -t
> >>>>> argument when adding the git remote. You can then list all branch
> >>>>> names and pick the ones you want to continue working on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For other projects, replace dolfin by the project name (but see the
> >>>>> notice below). All repositories are archived at
> >>>>> http://fenicsproject.org/pub/archive/fenics-bzr-to-git-conversion-2013/repositories/git/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IMPORTANT: We rewrote the history and stripped files for DOLFIN, FFC
> >>>>> and UFC, which is why you *have to* use {dolfin,ffc,ufc}.filtered.git
> >>>>> but {dorsal,ferari,fiat,instant,ufl}.git. Please be very careful not
> >>>>> to accidentally import the non-filtered history of those 3 projects!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Florian
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> - A very good resource for how to use git can be found here:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://git-scm.com/book
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I suggest everyone reads it carefully, at least the first three
> >>>>>> chapters, but here's a very quick git introduction:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. Same as hg/bzr with: git add, rm, commit, clone, push, pull,
> >>>>>> status
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. Files need to be staged before commit: git add foo, or use
> >>>>>> commit -a.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3. The whole bzr mess of needing to merge in a separate directory
> >>>>>> is gone. Just pull (or fetch + merge), commit, push as with hg.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 4. Branches are very light-weight and in-directory, as opposed to
> >>>>>> bzr with one-directory-per-branch.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Work in progress: new mailing list, moving questions to
> >>>>>> stackexchange, closing down Launchpad pages, moving issues,
> >>>>>> downloading copies of tarballs from Launchpad and archive on web
> >>>>>> page. Please comment and contribute.
>
> The imho most important step before people can start actually working
> with git is pointing the buildbots to the new repositories and getting
> them green. I just tried merging the git master into our FFC branch but
> realised it's completely pointless right now since master is
> comprehensively broken.

In what way? The references are missing but otherwise it seems to work
fine.

> >>>> Now is the time to discuss worflows to use with the new repositories.
> >>>> There is the opportunity to keep more than the master branch active in
> >>>> the "canonical" repository. A popular workflow is called gitflow [1] and
> >>>> there is a command line tool extending git for working with it [2].
> >>>>
> >>>> Everyone without push access to the canonical repositories will have to
> >>>> work in their own forks and make pull requests upstream. The core
> >>>> developers can decide on a policy on which branches are to be kept in
> >>>> the canonical repositories vs. personal forks.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]: http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
> >>>> [2]: https://github.com/nvie/gitflow
> >>>
> >>> The model described in [1] with 'dev' and 'master' branches in the
> >>> canonical repository looks like an attractive model.
> >>>
> >>> Is [1] the same as [2]?
> >>
> >> Yes, [2] is only a set of git extensions to simplify working with [1].
> >
> > I read [1] again. I really like this development model. I don't view
> > it as heavyweight at all. It seems to make the development process
> > easy and smooth, for example being able to quickly fix bugs in
> > development releases without stalling development in the 'develop'
> > branch or in feature branches.
> >
> > Another good thing is that someone obviously thought this through and
> > others are using it (to the point that special tools, documentation
> > and graphics have been created to support it, which means we don't
> > need to invent our own).
> >
> > I think we should adopt this model.
>
> Agreed, I think it's a proven and well documented model. However (as any
> other workflow) it requires a level of discipline among the core
> developers and everyone needs to adopt it.

Yes.

> For external contributions it's easy to enforce: only allow pull
> requests against the dev branch (or a realease or hotfix branch if
> applicable).

ok.

--
Anders