[petsc-dev] does next model mess up our histories

[Barry Smith]

On Oct 2, 2014, at 7:55 AM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Oct 2014, Barry Smith wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> I guess another alternative for these veryfew feature branches
>>> that need to iterate over nightlytest suites is:
>>> 
>>> - never merge feature branch to next untile its complete
>> 
>>   This is silly. I lose all the portability testing that next provides and would never be able to merge into next because I know things will be broken.
> 
> No - you would get the protability test as indicated by the second
> bullet listed below. This first requirement is to satisfy Jeds
> criteria - never rebase after merge to next.

   Yup. Jed is saying our histories should be terrible.

> 
>> 
>>   Yupp definitely something wrong with our current model. Seems to me we should just restart next from master every few days.
> 
> We are long overdue for a next restart. I go ahead and do that - and
> leave the re-merge of feature branches to individual owners.
> 
> But I still think its ok to undo merges in next if for whatever reason
> you need to rebase [but rebase has to be done as required]
> 
> I disagree on 'reset next' every few days as a fix to this problem. I suspect
> Jed will have a different objection for this reset..
> 
> Satish
> 
>>> - switch master or next nightlytest to feature branch [for a few days]
>>> - fix rebase feature branch as needed.
>>> 
>>> [would perhaps require test infrastructure improvements - and an
>>> apriori knowledge that this feature branch could go through major back
>>> and forth changes requiring multiple rebases]
>>> 
>>> Satish
>> 
>> 
>