[petsc-dev] workflow diagram

[Barry Smith]

  Good. Now with the new next introduced it could be confusing that there are two next since the original next has an arrow head How about removing that final error head and somehow marking the end of line (of the first next line) with a little box or something.

  Barry

On Apr 30, 2014, at 4:53 PM, Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org> wrote:

> Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> writes:
> 
>>   It is pretty good. One thing that I don’t think is clear is that
>>   the successful testing in next TRIGGERs the branch being merged up
>>   to master. I have drawn in an ugly curve which is an example of
>>   that. Sadly I couldn’t see how to put an arrow on it nor put text
>>   saying something like “successful test leads to merge of branch
>>   into master”.
> 
> I hoped that "merged with evidence of stability" communicated that part.
> 
>>   Also you use funky unnecessary language that muddles things up.
>> 
>>    red circle — merge to integration branch “integration”? Just say
>>    next/test branch in fact next should really be called test branch
>>    but I guess we are stuck with next
> 
> Changed.
> 
>>   You waste too much of the page with all the explanation at the
>>   bottom.
> 
> Hmm, I don't think I can expand the graph without making it more
> confusing.  The legend at the bottom lets my comment more, but I'm sure
> it can be tightened up more.
> 
>>   Make the maint and master branch lines blue, the feature lines
>>   yellow, the bug fix branch line green, the next branch line red
> 
> Done
> 
>>   The wording (usually start from master) is wrong. It is the branch
>>   that is usually started from master not the commit.
> 
> fixed
> 
>>   Remove all the business of “discard when next is rewound words”
>>   instead just show the next release being made on the right side of
>>   the picture and hence the new next being made again like you do at
>>   the left side
> 
> I've tried that.
> 
>>   With these changes you can get rid of the last three things at the
>>   bottom in ()
> 
> Hmm, I might wait on deleting that.  I'm not sure it's communicated by
> the other part of the figure.