As an alternative idea: What about using branches to mark "stable" and 
Tags are for fixed versions and so users will not receive updates unless they 
update their update scripts manually?!
When "development" is stable just merge into "stable".


PS: For all interested in git usage I recommend reading "man gitworkflows" [1]
[1] https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/gitworkflows.html

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquy...@cisco.com>
To: "Development list for the MPI Testing Tool" <mtt-de...@open-mpi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 5:49:34 PM
Subject: [MTT devel] MTT: let's use git tags

The topic came up today that MTT sometimes has bugs, particularly w.r.t. 
ongoing MTT development.

It seems like we should use git tags to let the OMPI/testing community know 
which tag they should be using (vs. HEAD).

To that end, I have created a "v3.0.0" tag that exists before the controversial 
set of commits I pushed the other day -- e12386e.  Assumedly, when we fix 
whatever problem Mellanox is setting with commits beyond e12386e, we can call 
that "v3.0.1", or some such, and ask everyone to move up to it.

So those who need stability should stick back at tags, and those who want to 
help with development can be at the HEAD.

How does that sound?

If that sounds ok, I'll ask the OMPI test community to git checkout v3.0.0.  
And in the future, we'll ask the OMPI test community to update to the next 
relevant tag, etc.

Jeff Squyres
For corporate legal information go to: 

mtt-devel mailing list
Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mtt-devel
Link to this post: 

Reply via email to