On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> The complexity of this workflow is: > > - should be comfortable with having multiple heads [atleast briefly - > if the history is to be similar to currrent workflow] > > - be able to work with revs other than heads - I guess managed with > bookmarks [and commit changes] to such revs and keep switching back > and forth [between tip, bookmarks etc..]. And make sure everyone uses > latest mercurial - otherwise 'hg bookmark' behavior could be > different. > Bookmarks are not required for this. I think it's pretty rare that someone outside of the core group needs to commit to release buildsystem after a release, but that can still be done without bookmarks. Just commit to the release point, then merge with tip, but do not advance petsc-release to point at tip. > > Its doable as long as folks are ok with the model. > > Personally I'm more comfortable with 'a seperate repo to represent > each branch' and thats what I had been doing at petsc.cs.iit.edu [but > now I'm ok with a single petsc-release repo - as long as Jed handles > the case of simultaneous commits to multiple releases :)] > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20121116/31b37115/attachment.html>
