A fast forward merge does not create a single merge commit but takes all
commits and applies them to the current branch.
So this will do what Jeff intended without the necessity of deleting and
recreating a static tag or editing version numbers in update scripts. ;)
- Original Message -
From: "Gilles Gouaillardet"
To: "Development list for the MPI Testing Tool"
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 4:06:34 AM
Subject: Re: [MTT devel] MTT: let's use git tags
What i meant by "less error prone" is "you use the stable branch by
default" so you do not checkout the dev/unstable
branch by default.
as you pointed, the level/frequency of MTT development is fairly low,
my idea would be to create a "dev" branch, and when the state of the dev
branch is "production ready", simply do a
git checkout master
git merge dev
that being said, i am far from mastering git and i cannot judge the pros
vs cons of this (merge) versus the fast forward
approach pointed by Christoph
On 2014/06/27 16:11, Christoph Niethammer wrote:
> +1, for a stable branch which is *fast forwarded* to master when changes are
> confirmed to work.
> PS: Tags are intended to be static and not moved around in git as Dave says,
> instead you can sign them using gpg fortifying them even more. ;)
> - Original Message -
> From: "Dave Goodell (dgoodell)"
> To: "Development list for the MPI Testing Tool"
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 2:47:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [MTT devel] MTT: let's use git tags
> Published Git tags are *not* movable (by design). You're better off making it
> a branch that you treat like a tag, if that's your desire. Even then, you
> might confuse someone who is less familiar with Git in some cases if you move
> that branch around.
>> On Jun 26, 2014, at 6:06 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)"
>> I've thought about this a little, and I'm still inclined to use the
>> simple/lazy method of tags on master. Some random points, in no particular
>> 1. master should always be for development, IMHO. If we start using a
>> multi-branch scheme, then the branches should be for releases, etc.
>> 2. MTT has always been distributed by VCS; we've never made discrete
>> distributions (e.g., a tarball). As such, I'm comfortable labeling it as a
>> bit "different" than how most other software is delivered -- e.g., using git
>> tags on master is "good enough".
>> 3. The level/frequency of MTT development is fairly low; it would be good to
>> keep the bar as low as possible for amount of work required to deploy a new
>> feature to the OMPI community for MTT testing. Meaning: a new feature or
>> bug fix pops up in MTT every once in a while -- we generally don't have
>> commits that are being developed and merged to a release series in an
>> out-of-order fashion. So doing a few commits for a new feature/bug fix and
>> then tagging the result is fine/good enough. If there *are* interleaved
>> commits of multiple new features/bug fixes, we can simply wait until all are
>> done before tagging.
>> 4. I realize this scheme is not as flexible as a release branch (where you
>> can merge new features/bug fixes out of order), but the level of MTT
>> development is so low that I'd prefer the slightly-simpler model of just
>> tagging (vs. merging/etc.).
>> 5. I'm not sure how using a release branch is less error-prone...? I
>> understand git branching is cheap, but if we have a separate branch, then we
>> either need to remember to cherry-pick every commit we want or we have to
>> continually merge from master->release_branch. Seems like more work/steps
>> to follow, and therefore more error-prone.
>> 6. The point about not being able to automate getting the latest stable MTT
>> is a good one. How about using numerical tags just to delineate our
>> intended "release" points, but also have a moveable tag, e.g.,
>> "ompi-mtt-testing" that will always point to the latest "release" that we
>> want the OMPI MTT test community to use? That way, you can always "git
>> checkout ompi-mtt-testing" to get the latest/greatest.
>> (...to that end, I've created/pushed an ompi-mtt-testing tag and pointed to
>> the same place as v3.0.0)
>>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 8:30 PM, 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
>>> - if you use the devel branch, one