On Jun 6, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > "you commit to petsc-dev " > > Show me the EXACT syntax you use to "commit to petsc-dev" and I'll show you > something stupid that no one will use. > > $ hg -R config/BuildSystem pull -u # Get that cool stuff, otherwise how > would you know it's there
Stop right there. So you are saying if I just run in petsc-dev: hg pull -u it will NOT pull and update in BuildSystem? What if in petsc-dev I do: hg commit; hg push. Will that or will that not commit and push all the changes I made in the BuildSystem ? Or will it ignore the changes I made in BuildSystem? Or will it put those changes into the petsc-dev repository and not the BuildSystem repository (so Matt won't get my cool changes I made to BuildSystem)? What if I am in the BuildSystem directory and commit and push? Into what repository(ies) do my changes go? Does it matter what directory I am in what happens when I do hg commit etc? I think Satish proved a few months ago the subrep concept made no sense with our petsc-dev and BuildSystem workflows. So why are you guys revisiting it since you haven't improved the inadequate subrep model since then? Please explain our work flow under the subrepo model where any of us are making changes in petsc-dev and BuildSystem (as part of petsc-dev) meanwhile people may also be making changes to BuildSystem. Note: don't think I am opposed to resolving the bisection problem, I am just opposed to "fixing it" if it totally breaks our everyday work flows. Barry > $ hg commit -m'cool stuff in BuildSystem' >
