[petsc-dev] petsc-dev on bitbucket

[Satish Balay]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Sean Farley wrote:

> >
> > 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.

Sure alternatives are possible. I guess the primary question is: is
are you suggesting this alternate workflow - just becuase its possible
- or because its better? This conversation started off with solving a
different problem - and then turned into changing workflow.

We have a decent workflow currently - and the whole change of workflow
[eventhough its possible] -I don't think buying us much. And I suspect
it has additional complexity which some of us don't want to deal with.

If we have to create multiple accounts to better organize repos - so
be it..

Satish