On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> @madams This branch is totally unreviewable in its current form, and > it cannot be bisected because many of the intermediate states are > broken. I understand making haphazard/checkpoint commits while > developing, but to maintain reviewability and quality in the long term, > it's important to organize the commits so that they can be understood in > sequence. Commit messages like "...", "temp version", and "cleaning up" > force the reviewer to read the commit in its entirety to have any idea > what it is supposed to accomplish. This makes it difficult to keep > track of what is happening, which discourages people from following > development, avoiding duplicate/conflicting work, etc. > > We have to support everything that goes into PETSc, but if we can't > follow development, we give outdated advice and end up unable to answer > questions. > > Most people working on PETSc are organizing their commits to be > reviewable these days. We can go to the commit and branch lists (in the > web interface or with Git locally) and the first line of the commit > message gives a good summary of what the commit is accomplishing, the > body of the commit message explains why it is important/who may be > impacted by the change, and the commit itself accomplishes something > that the viewer can check. This allows other developers to quickly get > the gist of what is in a branch, what may be interesting to look at in > more detail, etc. > > Commit topology and messages are key means by which developers > communicate with each other. It really doesn't take much effort once > you get in the habit of organizing commits as a means of communication > rather than as a log with arbitrary checkpoints. > > Any other means of communication, such as pull request summaries or > mailing list threads, are secondary sources, inherently more error-prone > and higher effort to evaluate, and provide less structure for automated > diagnostics/summaries. > > https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/wiki/writing-commit-messages > > Git provides good tools for reordering/squashing/amending commits, so > it's possible to develop in clutter and then organize when it's time to > communicate to other people. > > > This PR is blocked on some of Matt's long-running branches. @knepley > When will 'knepley/feature-dmda-section' and > 'knepley/feature-plex-refine-3d' be ready to merge? > knepley/feature-plex-refine-3d this could really merge tomorrow if we needed it, and I would do another branch to add the hex support. It should not be blocked on knepley/feature-dmda-section, which is going to take some time. Matt > Mark Adams <[email protected]> writes: > > > --- you can reply above this line --- > > > > A new pull request has been opened by Mark Adams. > > > > madams/sr-driver2 has changes to be pulled into master. > > > > > https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/pull-request/109/added-at-test-simplified-version-of-ex11 > > > > Title: Added at test, simplified version of ex11, convergence test. > Uses differencing to produce matrix in stand alone code, fixed SNES to > support this. > > > > Changes to be pulled: > > > > c1fa6a8934f2 by Mark Adams: "cleanup jed's cherry picked version" > > e7b0c4510d02 by Jed Brown: "Merge branch 'knepley/fix-plex-ghost-cells' > into jed/sr-driver > > > > DMLabelFilter is…" > > c56f055af68b by Mark Adams: "finished up adding serial DMPlex test with > a convergance test on a 5-point Lapla…" > > 8fdc87fb42d2 by Mark Adams: "cleaning up" > > 0fb202fbc65d by Mark Adams: "cleaning up > > > > Conflicts: > > src/ts/examples/tutorials/makefile" > > ... and 112 more. > > > > > > -- > > > > Unsubscribe from pull request emails for this repository. > > > https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/pull-request/109/unsubscribe/jedbrown/bc8a9c9283892888c102096c5dadc4a6a692a4fe/ > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener
