[petsc-dev] workflow diagram

[Peter Brune]

In fact, this may be part of Barry's point too... you could emphasize the
testing time for each of the feature/bugfix branches by putting the testing
arrow after the branch. and showing that it ends when merged.

- Peter


On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Peter Brune <prbrune at gmail.com> wrote:

> ... or at least the two that happen at once (master and maint).
>
> - Peter
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Peter Brune <prbrune at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Brune <prbrune at gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> > Looks good.  Directionality on the interbranch features via arrowheads
>>> > might give it a bit more of a flow-like feel.
>>>
>>> Done.  (I think this is what you had in mind.)
>>>
>>
>> Yep!
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > Lining up commits that are supposed to correspond and/or marking
>>> > merges in a particular way special might also make it prettier and
>>> > more intuitive.
>>>
>>> Merges are marked in a different color now.  How would you change that?
>>> (If it's hard to describe, maybe make a copy of the document and propose
>>> a change.)
>>>
>>
>> I might beat 'em over the head with it.  Right now the color scheme is
>> explained in the legend, but color differentiation is still very much
>> branch-by-branch.  Having a big "M" in the middle of merge nodes to
>> differentiate them further is what I might do.  This might be predicated on
>> me being lazy with respect to reading the legend, but still I don't think
>> that I was any more lazy than the average reader who might not already know
>> our workflow. :) Other little formatting things I might do is vertically
>> align branch merges that span multiple integration branches (for instance,
>> the three merges from the bugfix branch).
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20140430/6ca1380b/attachment.html>