On 07/18/2014 10:18 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
Dominic Meiser <[email protected]> writes:
To make things more specific, the bug fix is for DMDA's with cusp
vectors. I think this will be a fair amount of work and it may take a
while to complete. It needs work I've done in the
dmeiser/fix-cusp-bjacobi branch but is otherwise unrelated. I thought it
might be good to do it in a separate branch because of that. I wouldn't
want work on this bug fix to hold up things with fix-cusp-bjacobi or to
make that branch more difficult to review.
If you also need features in 'master', I would branch from 'master' and
merge 'dmeiser/fix-cusp-bjacobi'. But doing this is risky because now
your branch depends on the merge having been done right. If your
feature does not depend on more recent features in 'master', just create
the new branch from 'dmeiser/fix-cusp-bjacobi'.
It doesn't need new features in master.
In branch workflow, as with software development, it's good practice to
minimize dependencies within reason.
Note that 'dmeiser/fix-cusp-bjacobi' has somewhat tangled merge history,
so if you are going to clean it up, you should do that before starting a
new branch. (I don't really care in this case; keeping clean topic
branches gets easier with practice.)
I created a mess with upstream merges because I didn't appreciate the
consequences. I read up on this and things are much clearer now. I know
that fix-cusp-bjacobi doesn't merge into master without conflicts at
this point (the ill conceived upstream merges were an attempt to resolve
the conflicts in the branch). Would the best way to clean things up be
to recreate the branch off of master? Karl, would this mess with your
testing/reviewing of this branch?
Cheers,
Dominic
--
Dominic Meiser
Tech-X Corporation
5621 Arapahoe Avenue
Boulder, CO 80303
USA
Telephone: 303-996-2036
Fax: 303-448-7756
www.txcorp.com
