On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Satish Balay <ba...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2017, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > > > In the long term - Barry wants to get rid of next.. > > > > > > 1) I think next really prevents master from getting screwed up (witness > > next) > > > > 2) I think we are actually finding interaction bugs there. > > > > Are those points wrong, or is there another way to do these things? > > Next is an intergration testing mechanism. The prerequisite for it [I > think] is - one should test the branch properly before merging to > next. However we are not doing proper testing before merge to next - > and relying on next to do this part aswell. > > So with current next - it one has to figure out which branches are > breaking the tests [takes time - which most of us are not doing] - and > then hope it gets fixed quickly. Otherwise next stay broken for a long > time [and other branches in next - which could be clean - don't > receive sufficient confidence to graduate to master] > > So Barry's thought wrt getting next is to have a better way of testing > feature branch one wants to test (i.e master+feature). Its not clear > to me how many integration issues we've addressed with our current > next model. [Its mostly been indvidual branch issues] > > Also if feature-1 and feature-2 are feature branches that are tested > in next [wrt integration]. The following should be equivalent to > testing 'master + feature1 + feature2' - aka current next model: > > 1. test master+feature1 > 2. success => merge feature1 to master > 3. tets master+ feature2 > 3. success => merge feature2 to master > > Note: my next-tmp is an attempt to get closer to 'master+feature1' > testing from 'master+feature1+feature2' testing [yeah - its more like > master+2/3 branches in next-tmp vs master+10/15 branches in next.] > > Also I'm restarting next-tmp from a clean master when merging new set > of branches to test. And throwing away branches with problems - and > retest only after it has fixes [This way a broken branch does not keep > next-tmp broken until it gets fixed.] I don't think we have the resources to run full tests on every branch one at a time. Do we? Matt > > Satish -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>
