On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Jed Brown wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 20:59, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > If we have to create multiple accounts to better organize repos - so > > be it.. > > > > I take it the concern is that we end up with a long list of release > repositories that would look like clutter (although they'll be sorted so > they wouldn't be near the top).
Actually the number of repos is not a concern. But a reasonable organization is. The current *groups* we are are: releases tutorials externalpackages externalpackages-old Perhpas we might benifit with a few more - as times goes by. > Looking at the history, we really only ever have one release repository > that is accepting patches. After the 3.2 release, there are zero patches > applied to petsc-3.1. So maybe it would make sense to just have a single > "petsc-release" repository. You can update to tags if you want to revisit > something old. > Note that this would make our installation tutorials more > future-proof, always clone petsc-release if you want the release. sure you get some and loose some [features] :). Users get to update from release to release with the same clone [but then their externalpacakges will mess up their install ]. Yeah you have to tag just before pulling everything from 'dev' to release - and be able to create the equivalent 'old release' clones. Still I think the current organization is decent - and not in need of overhaul. If this gets importantat we can do it later aswell. Satish
