On Mar 11, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Hong Zhang <hzhang at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> No matter what new/better model is being introduced, please also try > to make the model > as SIMPLE as possible. > Below is what I learned from Jed this morning (correct me if I'm wrong): > > 1. a stable branch of petsc-dev for users > 2. a dynamic branch, e.g., named 'next', for group of internal petsc > developers > 3. private branch for individual project, e.g., I'm currently working > on minresqlp with Terrya Choi. > > For this model, I would appreciate a clear, precise and SHORT > instruction on how to do followings: > 1. fork a private branch from the stable branch petsc-dev > 2. pull/update private branch from stable branch > 3. push private change to 'next'. > 4. for nightly tests of private development, am I allowed to > frequently push changes to 'next'? > 5. how a project collaborator, e.g. Terrya clone my private branch > and work on it. Karl is working on these and hopefully we'll have draft versions soon. I cannot handle anything complicated so will make sure it is not complicated. Barry > > All for now, > > Hong > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Karl Rupp <rupp at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> Hi Sean, >> >>>>> Satish, please remove me from petsc-maint. Also, remove me from the >>>>> >>>>> developers webpage. I have already purged petsc-dev from my system and >>>>> won't be pushing anything else from now on. >>>> >>>> >>>> Huh, why this? This is not forced change of religion... >>> >>> >>> Why should I bother? Everyone will listen to Jed anyway. Sorry about the >>> CUDA+cmake patches, by the way, those are gone now. >> >> >> it will still be possible to work with Mercurial. The need for a new/better >> development model was also based on stability issues repeatedly raised by >> users at SIAM CSE, as you certainly remember. >> The decision followed a technical evaluation of the workflow, not on a >> 'Sean vs. Jed'-type of personal preference. Thus, you really should not take >> this personal. >> >> Best regards, >> Karli >>
