https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1kMHa7O6FB5iiJG5QPTWqlMne1xv17A6jOXXyQ_74kaE/edit?usp=sharing
One more change: I've attempted to make the text colors match the corresponding branch colors. There are 3 workflows in the 'feature branch' color scheme - so I've used different text (plain,bold,italic) to distuingish them. Satish On Thu, 1 May 2014, Satish Balay wrote: > I've made some more changes - introduced a couple of notations - and > attempted to be consistant with symbols and colors. > > And eliminated inconsistancies with some vertical lines (timed > actions) and some inclined lines(relation between commits). Now I use > all vertical lines (i.e timed actions) > > And also added the time-lapse between master & maint [during > release]. > > Perhaps it needs more fixes [Add 'rebase' action for > un-graduated-before-release branches? Other workflow things?] > > Or - am I headed in the wrong direction [i.e it looks complicated - > and not simpilfied?] > > thanks, > Satish > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Satish Balay wrote: > > > Ok - deleted.. > > > > The operation was refering to the feature/bug-fix branches on the left > > of it - and the timeline of the release. It overlaped with a > > 'master->next' dataflow arrow - so I agree it was confusing. > > > > [The feature bug fix branches are not represented well anyway - and > > some arrows are 'parent relations' and others are 'dataflow' - so I'll > > have to figureout how to better represent/differentiate these..] > > > > Satish > > > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Barry Smith wrote: > > > > > > > > What does the “delete all graduated branches” box serve? I find it > > > unneeded and confusing. You are just creating a new next based on the > > > current master. Don’t need that confusing language. > > > > > > > > > Barry > > > On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:25 PM, Satish Balay <ba...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Satish Balay wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Jed Brown wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Satish Balay <ba...@mcs.anl.gov> writes: > > > >>>>> Hmm, feature releases are in first-parent history of both 'maint' > > > >>>>> and > > > >>>>> 'master'. We tag a release on 'master', then do a fast-forward > > > >>>>> merge of > > > >>>>> the release tag into 'maint'. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Ok - updated. > > > >>> > > > >>> Aesthetically, I like the branches being straight lines, but I think > > > >>> this still looks like the release tag is not in first-parent history > > > >>> of > > > >>> 'maint' (like as though there is a no-ff merge). > > > >> > > > >> I used vertical lines to convey that master,maint,next at that point > > > >> are equivalent > > > > > > > > Ok - I added 'action' box to indicate the ff-merge from master to next. > > > > > > > > Satish > > > > > > > > >
