[petsc-dev] testing before merging to master

[Barry Smith]

On Nov 25, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Karl Rupp <rupp at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> >>      Hanging around in next is not going to make a test suite magically
>>>     become better!!!!
>> 
>> No, but eager external users might trip bugs if there are any, versus
>> merging to 'master' where it would affect the stability-seeking external
>> users.  There are always unexpected things that some applications do
>> that are not in the test suite, though we should strive to avoid such
>> things.
> 
> Second this!
> 
>>>   Ok, let’s formalize this and you tell us how to automate finding the “TODO” list for these branches:
>>> 
>>>    1) What is the format of the “TODO” list?  For example “Todo-before-merge-to-master: ….” ?
>> 
>> Sure.
>> 
>>>    2) What git command do I use to list all branches merged into next (but not master) with todo lists and what is in each todo’s list?
>> 
>> I would do two passes, one to find all the unmerged branches (that's the
>> alias you already have), then a
>> 
>>   git log --grep $branchname --first-parent master..next
>> 
>> and extract the TODO tag.
> 
> I'm fine with both 1) and 2). In addition, as soon as we have agree'd on a suitable format, I'll add a script to automatically extract this information and ask Satish to put the resulting HTML page to the Nightly logs folder. Which information do we want to have there?
> - Branchname (includes owner information)

   absolutely
> - Last Commit

   absolutely

> - Todo

   Yes

> - merged to master (yes/no)

   Yes


   We can worry about format as you go along.   You could start with (sorted from worst branch to best branch)

   Branchname merged to master yes/no latest commit 

   Todo info

   All errors detected on that branch

   Next branch name  merged to master yes/no latest commit

   Next todo

   next all errors

   etc etc


   Barry


> - Number of errors/warnings on a standard build? Might be expensive to check all branches. Maybe run this on a different (non-Nightly) machine?
> - anything else?
> With such a summary we should also be able to delete branches XY (30? 90?) days after they have been merged to master.
> 
> Best regards,
> Karli
>