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 <m...@simula.no> 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@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
