fenics team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:01:23PM +0200, Marie E. Rognes wrote:
> On 04/15/2013 02:47 PM, Anders Logg wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 02:43:14PM +0200, Marie E. Rognes wrote:
> >>On 04/15/2013 02:37 PM, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>>I suggest we adopt the "gitworkflows" development model as described here:
> >>>
> >>>   https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/gitworkflows.html
> >>>
> >>>(Can also be read by the command 'man 7 gitworkflows'.)
> >>>
> >>>In more detail, I suggest we
> >>>
> >>>- create 'maint', 'master', 'next' branches in the official repository
> >>>
> >>>- skip the 'pu' branch for now
> >>>
> >>>- publish topic branches in personal repositories
> >>>
> >>>- follow the "gitworkflows" model otherwise
> >>>
> >>>Core developers should read up on the description of gitworkflows and
> >>>comment. Any objections to adopting this model?
> >>>
> >>>The main motivation is that this is a standard model used by many
> >>>other projects, including our PETSc friends who can share their
> >>>experience and give us pointers when we stumble.
> >>So, you are referring to the PETSc model as described here:
> >>
> >>   https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/wiki/developer-instructions-git
> >>   https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/wiki/quick-dev-git
> >>
> >>as suggested earlier by Garth? Sounds good to me.
> >No, I'm referring to
> >
> >   https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/gitworkflows.html
> >
> >minus the 'pu' branch.
>
> Are there any crucial differences? As far as I can see, the PETSc
> wiki provides a bit more detail (very useful for those of us new to
> git) and specific naming suggestions.

Yes it's useful so it is definitely worth reading. It's also very
close to gitworkflows. But if we should adopt a model, I prefer to say
that we adopt the "gitworkflows model", instead of "the gitworkflows
model as currently interpreted by the PETSc developers".

--
Anders