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".
