+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)" <dgood...@cisco.com> To: "Development list for the MPI Testing Tool" <mtt-de...@open-mpi.org> 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. -Dave > On Jun 26, 2014, at 6:06 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquy...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > 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 > order: > > 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 >> <gilles.gouaillar...@iferc.org> wrote: >> >> +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 mailing list >> mtt-de...@open-mpi.org >> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mtt-devel >> Link to this post: >> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/mtt-devel/2014/06/0636.php > > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > _______________________________________________ > mtt-devel mailing list > mtt-de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mtt-devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/mtt-devel/2014/06/0639.php _______________________________________________ mtt-devel mailing list mtt-de...@open-mpi.org Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mtt-devel Link to this post: http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/mtt-devel/2014/06/0640.php
