[petsc-dev] migrating repos from petsc.cs.iit.edu to bitbucket.org

[Barry Smith]

  I am not advocating fixing all capitalizations at this time, just BuildSystems.

  Plus we should tell everyone to completely reclone anyways.

   Keeping the in consist BuildSystem just to prevent a small number of temporary hiccups is not a good idea. We're writing PETSc not lapack.



   Barry

On Nov 16, 2012, at 2:10 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Barry Smith wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm in the process of migrating repos from petsc.cs.iit.edu to
>>> bitbucket.org, and have to resolve a few organization issues.
>>> 
>>> Restrictions.
>>> - all repos should be lowercase
>>> - no subdir organization possible [like http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/externalpackages/]
>>> 
>>> 1. Since we are forced to change reponame from 'BuildSystem' to
>>> 'buildsystem' - I'd like to take this opportunity to change it to
>>> 'buildsystem-dev' to be consistent with petsc-dev. i.e instructions
>>> will be:
>>> 
>>> hg clone https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc-dev
>>> hg clone https://bitbucket.org/petsc/buildsystem-dev petsc-dev/config/BuildSystem
>>> 
>>> or
>>> 
>>> hg clone https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc-release
>>> hg clone https://bitbucket.org/petsc/buildsystem-release petsc-release/config/BuildSystem
>>> 
>>> and current clones would need updates to .hg/hgrc only.
>>> 
>>> one alternative was to change the path in source to
>>> petsc-dev/config/buildsystem but it will cause some breakage and other
>>> inconsistencies in source file naming scheming - so I'm against that
>> 
>>   What breakage. I really don't like having caps in one place and small letters in another. Horrible inconsistency
> 
> I guess one can anticipate all issues and make configure deal with
> them. [with autofix - or with an error message]. The couple of
> issues I was thinking off:
> 
> - different organization between petsc-release and buildsystem confusing
> users.
> - configure might automatically create a new 'buildsystem' clone - when
> the user might still have BuildSystem - and attempt to make changes there.
> 
> - bisection might need manual tweaking if if needs to go back and
>  forth over this changepoint [from BuildSystem to buildsystem]
> 
> Also we won't have consistant naming of 'reop' to 'file' anyway. So I
> see not much motivation to preserve the 'lowercase' part of the
> attribute.
> 
> i.e buildsystem-dev -> buildsystem
>    buildsystem-release -> buildsystem
> 
> Also with this rename - lot of sourcefiles/dirs have to be renamed
> [for a consistant lowercase naming scheme] - loosing annotations in
> mercurial history [perhaps mercurial should handle this automatically
> - but I haven't checked it in depth].
> 
> Satish
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>>    Barry
>> 
>>> 
>>> another alternative is to use 'petsc', 'buildsystem', 'petsc-release',
>>> 'buildsystem-release' [but we have too much baggage referring to
>>> petsc-dev, with a mailing list etc reusing this name]
>>> 
>>> 2. I plan to reorganize external package repos [that we might have
>>> patches for] with a pkg prefix.
>>> 
>>> i.e
>>> http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/externalpackages/metis-5.0.2
>>> http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/externalpackages/parmetis-4.0.2
>>> 
>>> to:
>>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/pkg-metis-5.0.2
>>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/pkg-parmetis-4.0.2
>>> 
>>> etc..
>>> 
>>> 3. Are AMS, ctetgen, win32fe special packages and be listed at toplevel?
>>> currently ctetgen is listed under 'externalpackages'. Should it be at toplevel?
>>> 
>>> i.e
>>> 
>>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/win32fe-dev
>>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/ams-dev
>>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/ctetgen-dev
>>> 
>>> Any thoughts?
>>> 
>>> thanks,
>>> Satish
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>