fenics team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes.

And when we know more about how it works, we should write up our own
list of instructions, in particular regarding branches that span
several projects.

--
Anders


On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:48:30PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> > Post to     : fenics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp