[petsc-dev] PTScotch 6

[Jed Brown]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> So if the branch is quick-fix-merge-to-master - then its ok not to
> create a remote branch.
>

Sure, use discretion. If there's a question, push the branch too.


> > We can always look at the ancestor of the branch to see where it started
> > from.
>
> Hm - so 'if branch from maint - eventual merge destination for
> branch/patch is maint'?
>

Yes, but that merge might never happen if there are no more maintenance
releases in that series. If someone wants it, they can get it easily.


> But this increates the probability of merge conflicts that would have
> to be manually resolved. And we've avoided doing this before. So now
> we do these extra 'manual' merges now?
>

Merge strategies can help make those conflicted merges easier, but there is
inherently more effort to apply a patch to a very old version of the code,
which will have more conflicts. But if you think you might want the fix in
'maint', the best way to make that possible is to start a topic branch
there.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130319/f740cec4/attachment.html>