Re: [MTT devel] MTT: let's use git tags

2014-06-24 Thread Gilles Gouaillardet
+1 for using branches : branch usage is less error prone plus git makes
branching unexpensive.

as far as i am concerned, i'd rather have the default master branch is
the for the "stable" version
and have one branch called devel (or dev, or whatever) :
- git clone => get the stable (aka master) branch by default (safe by
default)
- if you use the devel branch, one can only assume you know what you are
doing ...

That being said, tags on the master branch is a good practice

Cheers,

Gilles

On 2014/06/25 2:33, Christoph Niethammer wrote:
> As an alternative idea: What about using branches to mark "stable" and 
> "development"?
> Tags are for fixed versions and so users will not receive updates unless they 
> update their update scripts manually?!
> When "development" is stable just merge into "stable".



[MTT devel] MTT: let's use git tags

2014-06-24 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
The topic came up today that MTT sometimes has bugs, particularly w.r.t. 
ongoing MTT development.

It seems like we should use git tags to let the OMPI/testing community know 
which tag they should be using (vs. HEAD).

To that end, I have created a "v3.0.0" tag that exists before the controversial 
set of commits I pushed the other day -- e12386e.  Assumedly, when we fix 
whatever problem Mellanox is setting with commits beyond e12386e, we can call 
that "v3.0.1", or some such, and ask everyone to move up to it.

So those who need stability should stick back at tags, and those who want to 
help with development can be at the HEAD.

How does that sound?

If that sounds ok, I'll ask the OMPI test community to git checkout v3.0.0.  
And in the future, we'll ask the OMPI test community to update to the next 
relevant tag, etc.

-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquy...@cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to: 
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/