I've thought about this a little, and I'm still inclined to use the simple/lazy method of tags on master. Some random points, in no particular order:
1. master should always be for development, IMHO. If we start using a multi-branch scheme, then the branches should be for releases, etc. 2. MTT has always been distributed by VCS; we've never made discrete distributions (e.g., a tarball). As such, I'm comfortable labeling it as a bit "different" than how most other software is delivered -- e.g., using git tags on master is "good enough". 3. The level/frequency of MTT development is fairly low; it would be good to keep the bar as low as possible for amount of work required to deploy a new feature to the OMPI community for MTT testing. Meaning: a new feature or bug fix pops up in MTT every once in a while -- we generally don't have commits that are being developed and merged to a release series in an out-of-order fashion. So doing a few commits for a new feature/bug fix and then tagging the result is fine/good enough. If there *are* interleaved commits of multiple new features/bug fixes, we can simply wait until all are done before tagging. 4. I realize this scheme is not as flexible as a release branch (where you can merge new features/bug fixes out of order), but the level of MTT development is so low that I'd prefer the slightly-simpler model of just tagging (vs. merging/etc.). 5. I'm not sure how using a release branch is less error-prone...? I understand git branching is cheap, but if we have a separate branch, then we either need to remember to cherry-pick every commit we want or we have to continually merge from master->release_branch. Seems like more work/steps to follow, and therefore more error-prone. 6. The point about not being able to automate getting the latest stable MTT is a good one. How about using numerical tags just to delineate our intended "release" points, but also have a moveable tag, e.g., "ompi-mtt-testing" that will always point to the latest "release" that we want the OMPI MTT test community to use? That way, you can always "git checkout ompi-mtt-testing" to get the latest/greatest. (...to that end, I've created/pushed an ompi-mtt-testing tag and pointed to the same place as v3.0.0) On Jun 24, 2014, at 8:30 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet <gilles.gouaillar...@iferc.org> wrote: > +1 for using branches : branch usage is less error prone plus git makes > branching unexpensive. > > as far as i am concerned, i'd rather have the default master branch is > the for the "stable" version > and have one branch called devel (or dev, or whatever) : > - git clone => get the stable (aka master) branch by default (safe by > default) > - if you use the devel branch, one can only assume you know what you are > doing ... > > That being said, tags on the master branch is a good practice > > Cheers, > > Gilles > > On 2014/06/25 2:33, Christoph Niethammer wrote: >> As an alternative idea: What about using branches to mark "stable" and >> "development"? >> 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". > > _______________________________________________ > mtt-devel mailing list > mtt-de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mtt-devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/mtt-devel/2014/06/0636.php -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
