I think we could nicely do petsc-dev, petsc-release, and one buildsystem managed as a subrepo.
We could do one petsc too, bit hg branches/bookmarks kinda suck so I don't think it would be as nice. On Nov 16, 2012 4:32 PM, "Satish Balay" <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > to rephrase - do we do: > > 1. petsc, buildsystem, petsc-release, buildsystem-release > 2. petsc-dev, buildsystem-dev, petsc-release, buildsystem-release > 3. petsc-dev, buildsystem, petsc-release, buildsystem-release > 4. something else? > > satish > > > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Satish Balay wrote: > > > Do you want to have the repo name as 'buildsystem' or > > 'buildsystem-dev'? > > > > note: reclones shouldn't be need for such renames [or url changes] - > > but one is free to do that if they want to.. > > > > Satish > > > > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Barry Smith wrote: > > > > > > > > I am not advocating fixing all capitalizations at this time, just > BuildSystems. > > > > > > Plus we should tell everyone to completely reclone anyways. > > > > > > Keeping the in consist BuildSystem just to prevent a small number > of temporary hiccups is not a good idea. We're writing PETSc not lapack. > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry > > > > > > On Nov 16, 2012, at 2:10 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Barry Smith wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > >> On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> I'm in the process of migrating repos from petsc.cs.iit.edu to > > > >>> bitbucket.org, and have to resolve a few organization issues. > > > >>> > > > >>> Restrictions. > > > >>> - all repos should be lowercase > > > >>> - no subdir organization possible [like > http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/externalpackages/] > > > >>> > > > >>> 1. Since we are forced to change reponame from 'BuildSystem' to > > > >>> 'buildsystem' - I'd like to take this opportunity to change it to > > > >>> 'buildsystem-dev' to be consistent with petsc-dev. i.e instructions > > > >>> will be: > > > >>> > > > >>> hg clone https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc-dev > > > >>> hg clone > > > >>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/buildsystem-devpetsc-dev/config/BuildSystem > > > >>> > > > >>> or > > > >>> > > > >>> hg clone https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc-release > > > >>> hg clone > > > >>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/buildsystem-releasepetsc-release/config/BuildSystem > > > >>> > > > >>> and current clones would need updates to .hg/hgrc only. > > > >>> > > > >>> one alternative was to change the path in source to > > > >>> petsc-dev/config/buildsystem but it will cause some breakage and > other > > > >>> inconsistencies in source file naming scheming - so I'm against > that > > > >> > > > >> What breakage. I really don't like having caps in one place and > small letters in another. Horrible inconsistency > > > > > > > > I guess one can anticipate all issues and make configure deal with > > > > them. [with autofix - or with an error message]. The couple of > > > > issues I was thinking off: > > > > > > > > - different organization between petsc-release and buildsystem > confusing > > > > users. > > > > - configure might automatically create a new 'buildsystem' clone - > when > > > > the user might still have BuildSystem - and attempt to make changes > there. > > > > > > > > - bisection might need manual tweaking if if needs to go back and > > > > forth over this changepoint [from BuildSystem to buildsystem] > > > > > > > > Also we won't have consistant naming of 'reop' to 'file' anyway. So I > > > > see not much motivation to preserve the 'lowercase' part of the > > > > attribute. > > > > > > > > i.e buildsystem-dev -> buildsystem > > > > buildsystem-release -> buildsystem > > > > > > > > Also with this rename - lot of sourcefiles/dirs have to be renamed > > > > [for a consistant lowercase naming scheme] - loosing annotations in > > > > mercurial history [perhaps mercurial should handle this automatically > > > > - but I haven't checked it in depth]. > > > > > > > > Satish > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Barry > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> another alternative is to use 'petsc', 'buildsystem', > 'petsc-release', > > > >>> 'buildsystem-release' [but we have too much baggage referring to > > > >>> petsc-dev, with a mailing list etc reusing this name] > > > >>> > > > >>> 2. I plan to reorganize external package repos [that we might have > > > >>> patches for] with a pkg prefix. > > > >>> > > > >>> i.e > > > >>> http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/externalpackages/metis-5.0.2 > > > >>> http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/externalpackages/parmetis-4.0.2 > > > >>> > > > >>> to: > > > >>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/pkg-metis-5.0.2 > > > >>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/pkg-parmetis-4.0.2 > > > >>> > > > >>> etc.. > > > >>> > > > >>> 3. Are AMS, ctetgen, win32fe special packages and be listed at > toplevel? > > > >>> currently ctetgen is listed under 'externalpackages'. Should it be > at toplevel? > > > >>> > > > >>> i.e > > > >>> > > > >>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/win32fe-dev > > > >>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/ams-dev > > > >>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/ctetgen-dev > > > >>> > > > >>> Any thoughts? > > > >>> > > > >>> thanks, > > > >>> Satish > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20121116/f296fa6d/attachment-0001.html>
