On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:24:12PM +0100, Martin Alnæs wrote: > > Den 7. nov. 2011 kl. 21:41 skrev Anders Logg <l...@simula.no>: > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 04:00:18PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > >> On Monday October 31 2011 15:20:21 Martin Alnæs wrote: > >>> I'll just comment quickly on the bzr vs git workings for those who care. > >>> > >>> Main point: in bzr you fetch one branch at a time (afaik*), while in git > >>> you often fetch a repo with multiple branches. This changes how branches > >>> are used. > >>> > >>> *Please prove me wrong :) > >> > >> While this is true, you can use > >> > >> bzr init-repository > >> > >> to connect a set of branches to a shared repor, which typically is a > >> development branch. This to share space for the different branches. But > >> AFAIK > >> the shared branches are not per se connected to the development branch > >> (repo), > >> they just share most of the revisions. > > > > Yes, I use this for sharing revisions between many branches, in > > particular > > > > trunk > > trunk-logg > > 1.0.x > > 1.0.x-logg > > That is just a local optimization, doesn't affect my point at > all. It is probably hard to appreciate the difference without having > worked with git though. The bottom line is I think Andy's git > workflow looks great for git, and our new workflow looks good for us > with bzr.
I know. I just wanted to answer Johan's question which I interpreted as "Is it safe to use a shared repo to store different branches like trunk and 1.0.x?" -- Anders > Martin > > > >>> Den 31. okt. 2011 kl. 20:51 skrev Andy Ray Terrel <andy.ter...@gmail.com>: > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Martin Sandve Alnæs <marti...@simula.no> > >> wrote: > >>>>> On 31 October 2011 03:17, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.ter...@gmail.com> 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/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There are a few differences here between the models and I don't know > >>>>>> how feasible they are with bazaar. > >>>>> > >>>>> I see 'master' here as an alias for 'the latest tag in the latest > >>>>> release branch'. We want to keep the release branches to allow easy > >>>>> hotfixes towards any previous release later. I think that is valuable, > >>>>> and I don't see what having the master branch solves? > >>>> > >>>> So this is a detail that is particular to git maybe. Basically the > >>>> master branch is a "clean" trace of the patches made to the code base. > >>>> It gives a single line of how things are developed, rather than > >>>> having to jump from branch to branch to see what happened. > >>> > >>> Ok. In bzr, -no-ff is how merge always work, so if you always merge in the > >>> right direction you get the equivalent. If merges are sometimes done in > >>> the 'wrong' direction, I think master could play a similar role with bzr. > >>> > >>>>>> 1) Feature branches for work allows for multiple people to be working > >>>>>> on different parts of the code easily > >>>>> > >>>>> We do something like this regularly, but I think we mostly use > >>>>> personal branches with no feature name though. There could be > >>>>> improvements to the way we use these branches. > >>>> > >>>> So github does the publication of these branches really well. For > >>>> example in SymPy, we can see what people are working on by just > >>>> fetching their repos. > >>> > >>> In bzr, you never fetch a repo, you just get a single branch. This is the > >>> most important difference. But you can see on launchpad all personal > >>> dolfin branches there by going to the dolfin page and clicking 'code'. > >> > >> I have most of the other's branches locally on my computer, and can easily > >> check out what they are doing. > >> > >> Johan > >> > >>>>>> 2) Keep the hotfixes on a branches that are pulled into both the > >>>>>> mainline development and the stable release > >>>>> > >>>>> With the model Anders posted we would do hotfixes in the release > >>>>> branch and make a 1.0.x bugfix release. This would be merged into > >>>>> mainline (trunk). No need for a separate hotfix branch, since the > >>>>> release branch should have only bugfixes for that release. > >>>> > >>>> So it looks to me like a hotfix in Anders model, requires every active > >>>> branch to have the patch applied. Here you make a branch for the > >>>> hotfix, review the fix, put it in the active dev and master (which is > >>>> really a stable mainline), and finally delete the branch. This model > >>>> tries really hard to avoid the SVN style branches that live forever > >>>> with only the dev and master being permanant. Anders model looks to > >>>> me that you will have a lot of branches in a small amount of time, but > >>>> then again I could not be seeing that particular detail. > >>> > >>> We will have a few new branches each year, but those just stay on > >>> launchpad > >>> and don't follow a repo around like in git. And branches that stay around > >>> for however long we want them to is a feature in our model, allowing easy > >>> hot fixes towards any previous release branch. We could delete them when > >>> obsolete, but there's no value in that since they just stay on the server. > >>> > >>>>>> 3) Trims branches as soon as possible so you have a clear > >>>>>> understanding of where work is going. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think we understand where work is going with the new model: Features > >>>>> go into trunk, and only bugfixes in release branches. > >>>>> > >>>>> To reduce the cost of keeping release branches 'forever', we may mark > >>>>> old releases as obsolete in launchpad at some point and stop fixing > >>>>> bugs. > >>>> > >>>> Yes but won't they show up forever in bzr? > >>> > >>> Only on the launchpad server. > >>> > >>>>>> 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. > >>>>> > >>>>> Not sure what the "FEniCS model" is here, but maybe that's part of the > >>>>> problem? > >>>> > >>>> Well it could be more my problem, but more I meant "the way FEniCS is > >>>> currently developed." > >>> > >>> We weren't all happy ourselves, so hopefully the new model is a big step > >>> in > >>> the right direction. > >>> > >>> Martin > >>> > >>>> -- Andy > >>>> > >>>>> Martin > >>>>> > >>>>>> -- 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. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> 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 _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : fenics@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
