[petsc-dev] PETSc developers who use weird MPI

[Barry Smith]

  Alls well that ends well

On Nov 1, 2013, at 11:41 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> 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 But I missed 1/2 a one (somehow) getting an outdated verson of the sf-sfbasics into saws.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.