[petsc-dev] workflow diagram

[Satish Balay]

I've made some more changes - introduced a couple of notations - and
attempted to be consistant with symbols and colors.

And eliminated inconsistancies with some vertical lines (timed
actions) and some inclined lines(relation between commits).  Now I use
all vertical lines (i.e timed actions)

And also added the time-lapse between master & maint [during
release].

Perhaps it needs more fixes [Add 'rebase' action for
un-graduated-before-release branches? Other workflow things?]

Or - am I headed in the wrong direction [i.e it looks complicated -
and not simpilfied?]

thanks,
Satish

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Satish Balay wrote:

> Ok - deleted..
> 
> The operation was refering to the feature/bug-fix branches on the left
> of it - and the timeline of the release. It overlaped with a
> 'master->next' dataflow arrow - so I agree it was confusing.
> 
> [The feature bug fix branches are not represented well anyway - and
> some arrows are 'parent relations' and others are 'dataflow' - so I'll
> have to figureout how to better represent/differentiate these..]
> 
> Satish
> 
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Barry Smith wrote:
> 
> > 
> >   What does the “delete all graduated branches” box serve? I find it unneeded and confusing. You are just creating a new next based on the current master.  Don’t need that confusing language.
> > 
> > 
> >   Barry
> > On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:25 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Satish Balay wrote:
> > > 
> > >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Jed Brown wrote:
> > >> 
> > >>> Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> writes:
> > >>>>> Hmm, feature releases are in first-parent history of both 'maint' and
> > >>>>> 'master'.  We tag a release on 'master', then do a fast-forward merge of
> > >>>>> the release tag into 'maint'.
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> Ok - updated.
> > >>> 
> > >>> Aesthetically, I like the branches being straight lines, but I think
> > >>> this still looks like the release tag is not in first-parent history of
> > >>> 'maint' (like as though there is a no-ff merge).
> > >> 
> > >> I used vertical lines to convey that master,maint,next at that point are equivalent
> > > 
> > > Ok - I added 'action' box to indicate the ff-merge from master to next.
> > > 
> > > Satish
> > 
> > 
>