[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

[Sean Farley]

>
> Hg named branches are kind of screwy and bookmarks (which are less screwy)
> are still an "extension"
>

This is true. Named branches are directly inherited from older versioning
systems (cvs, svn, etc.). After 2.0 Matt Mackall was convinced that
bookmarks so be completely analgous to git's branching:

$ hg branch foo
marked working directory as branch foo
(branches are permanent and global, did you want a bookmark?)

Mercurial 2.1 includes fixes that move and update bookmarks automatically
(and also allow pulling divergent bookmarks: foo at 1, foo at 2)

so it makes sense to have separate clones to use for release management.
> But these releases get merged back, so just tagging them would place the
> tarball in the right place.
>

Righto.


> But PETSc release tarballs include generated documentation, so using
> bitbucket's auto-generated tag-tarballs is not enough for releases.
>

Ah, that's right. I think this could be fixed by using the tag info in the
scripts that generate the documentation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120209/141b8999/attachment.html>