On Sunday October 30 2011 22:23:42 Ridgway Scott wrote: > Maybe we should talk about Andy's comments at the FEniCS meeting > this week in Lubbock.
That would be great. But unfortunately not all of us will be there, me included. I would also appreciate a bit more details about the nature and content of such claims. Obviously it is not very tempting to stand out and raise such claims directly on a list, but it is difficult to do anything about it if that is not done. Johan > Ridg > > On Oct 30, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Johan Hake wrote: > > On Sunday October 30 2011 19:17:38 Andy Ray Terrel wrote: > >> Here's the "model" that I've been using on several projects with teams > >> located across the globe. > >> > >> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ > > > > That was a nice read! > > > >> There are a few differences here between the models and I don't know > >> how feasible they are with bazaar. > > > > I do not see any problems using bzr with that model. > > > > I see a couple of differences between the proposed model and the one you > > > > present here: > > 1) We do not have a master branch and hence not hotfix branches. > > > > 2) We have snapshot releases which will not result in a separate branch > > > > but just reflect a change in versioning numbers in the appropriate > > files in the develop branch. > > > > 3) AFAIK we have not considered doing all release related development, > > > > including bugfixes in a dedicated release branch. This means that > > once we deside to go into release mode we make a branch. Fix bugs > > milestoned to that release. Change file numbering reflecting the > > new release. And then after all this is done we merge the changes > > back into the development branch > > > > My comments: > > > > I am not convinced we need a master branch. However, it looks like a > > clean development model... > > > > I also think the snapshot releases (alpha) make sense for FEniCS, as we > > are a community driven project with little time dealing with large > > release related developments. > > > > I _do_ think we should consider the release related development approach > > desribed in your link Andy. It make sense and make it possible for > > features to be added to the development branch while a release get > > prepared. > > > >> 1) Feature branches for work allows for multiple people to be working > >> on different parts of the code easily > > > > We already have feature branches. They are mostly, as also suggested by > > the link, excisting as private branches among the main developers. > > > >> 2) Keep the hotfixes on a branches that are pulled into both the > >> mainline development and the stable release > > > > We need to add a Master branch for it to make sense to have hotfix > > branches, I guess? Not convinced we need such a branch though. > > > >> 3) Trims branches as soon as possible so you have a clear > >> understanding of where work is going. > > > > What do you mean with this? Merge with development as often as possible? > > > >> Anywho, my thought has always been that FEniCS model makes it > >> difficult for non-(Simula + Garth's lab) to contribute. I've actually > >> had people tell me this at conferences. But then again I've also been > >> told that FEniCS doesn't want users as well. > > > > I think this is sad. It would be interesting to go into why this might > > be. We have had a couple of contributions lately. Is it something with > > the culture, rather than the development model? > > > > The last year or two we have had focus on demanding unit tests for new > > code. This raises the bars to contribute, but I think that is sane, and > > I guess this is not a main reason for difficulties to contribute? I also > > have the feeling that if someone have a ready patch with some feature > > implemented, it get reviewed, pretty fast with decent comment from > > developers. > > > > Maybe what you refere to is the difficulties to influence development of > > larger features if you are not in the above physical places, Simula + > > Garth lab? > > > > Regards, > > > > Johan > > > >> -- Andy > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Anders Logg <l...@simula.no> wrote: > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> There has been some concern regarding the lack of predictability in > >>> FEniCS releases. Yesterday, some of us at Simula met to discuss what > >>> can be done to improve the situation. The result is the following > >>> draft for a future development model: > >>> > >>> http://fenicsproject.org/contributing/development_model.html > >>> > >>> Please comment on the draft and suggest corrections. > >>> > >>> The new development model calls for a "release manager" to coordinate > >>> each stable release (currently 1.0). I can volunteer to serve as > >>> release manager this time. I'd be happy to step aside if someone else > >>> is motivated. > >>> > >>> I know some of you, in particular those from Simula who helped draft > >>> the proposal, have already said OK, but please respond anyway for the > >>> record. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Anders > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics > >>> Post to : fenics@lists.launchpad.net > >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics > >>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics > >> Post to : fenics@lists.launchpad.net > >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics > >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics > > Post to : fenics@lists.launchpad.net > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : fenics@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
