fenics team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx>]

So in summary, do we agree as a start to adopt the 'gitworkflows' work
flow minus 'pu', and to use the PETSc detailed git instructions for
beginners on how to implement gitworkflows (i.e. use the PETSc docs to
know what command to type . . . ).

Garth

On 15 April 2013 14:10, Marie E. Rognes <meg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 04/15/2013 03:08 PM, Anders Logg wrote:
>>
>> 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".
>
>
> Ok, thanks for clarifying. Still sounds good to me.
>
> --
> Marie
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> Post to     : fenics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp