[petsc-dev] PETSc developers who use weird MPI

[Jed Brown]

Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> writes:

> On Fri, 1 Nov 2013, Barry Smith wrote:
>
>>    Like how are we going to do that? Every time someone merges to
>>    next I check it and decide if that branch also needs to be merged
>>    into all my long living branches. Yeah like that is going to
>>    happen.
>
> I don't think you are supporsed to do that unless you specifically need
> the features from this branch. And then you keep track of future
> fixes - and see if you need to remerge.

Alternatively, when someone makes a bug-fix in a branch that has been
"released" (merged to 'next' or someone else's branch), they run

  git branch -r --contains THE-BAD-COMMIT

and pings the relevant people (maybe just tag them in a bitbucket
comment on the commit).

>>    The reason I had to merge all that stuff into saws was that saws could not merge into next because those branches so changed next. I had to merge them into saws before I could get saws into next. But I missed 1/2 a one (somehow) getting an outdated verson of the sf-sfbasics into saws.
>> 
>
> No the more appropriate thing here would be to merge/rebase to latest
> master.
>
> And then attempt to merge saws to next.

Too late for that now and I don't have a problem with the version that
merges, but it should make sure that anything being merged in is in a
"releasable" state.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20131101/25391d92/attachment.sig>