On Tue, 19 Mar 2013, Jed Brown wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > > There is a new version of PTScotch. I tried configuring with > > --download-ptscotch= > > https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/31832/scotch_6.0.0_esmumps.tar.gz > > > > > > It works on Linux with the patch below (note the missing whitespace > > should have been fixed in 3.3). > > > > Hm - so this part of the patch should go into 'maint' tree - and then > > merged into 'next/master'? So we need 2 branches for applying this patch? > > one that goes into 'maint' & 'next/master' - the other that goes into > > 'next/master'? > > > > No, we would apply the patch in 'maint' and merge the branch directly to > 'next'. Later, we merge the same branch into 'maint'.
I don't understand this. you mean 'master' at the end? So you mean: - create a 'patch' branch off 'maint' and apply this patch. - merge this 'patch' branch to 'maint' - merge this 'patch' branch to 'next' - merge thsi 'patch' branch to 'master' or something else? > > > > > > [Will let the git experts comment on the workflow to use'] > > > > I dont' unserstand the 'maint' branch. It has merges from 3.3 - so I > > don't know if its eqivalent to petsc-3.3+bs-3.3 or not. [ andI'm not > > sure if we'll have another patch update to 3.3] > > > It does not have merges from 3.3. It does have a merge from 3.2 because I > applied .gitignore and the buildsystem import back to 3.2. Sorry - I meant to say 'it has merges from 3.2' - so I'm not sure how eqivalent it is to previous 3.3-petsc+3.3-bs - and if we should generate patch updates for 3.3 from this or not. Satish
