[petsc-dev] bitbucket pull requests

[Matthew Knepley]

On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Balay, Satish <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>  Some additional thoughts.
>
> WRT: bitbubket RFEs would be
>
> 1. Config to remove merge button and suggest a copy/pasteable git fetch cmd
>
> 2. Config to suggest only maint and master branches for pull requests.
>
> And on our(integrator) side we create a better tractable branch name -
> perhaps:
>
> Pull#-integrator/contributor/feature (or a better encoding)
>

I like these suggestions.

   Matt


> Satish
>  ------------------------------
> From: Balay, Satish <balay at mcs.anl.gov>
> Sent: ‎9/‎13/‎2014 12:35 AM
> To: Smith, Barry F. <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov>; For users of the development
> version of PETSc <petsc-dev at mcs.anl.gov>
> Subject: RE: [petsc-dev] bitbucket pull requests
>
>   I don't consider (2) as an problem of pull request. The issues
> mentioned are artifacts of our current workflow.
>
> The primarily  difference between new feature by us vs by pull request is
> the way feature branch is created and  populated.
>
> By us:
>
> git checkout -b  branch; edit; git commit
>
> Pull request:
>
> git fetch URL branch
>
> The remaining workflow is exactly same for both.
>
> the tracking issues are  primarily issues with workflow.
>
> And the pull request contributors are required to know the workflow. I.e
> know when to create  new branch off maint vs master - this in turn
> determines the pull request submitted for next vs master.
>
> Again this is the artifact of the workflow.
>
> We could decide not to burden contributions  with understanding the
> workflow - and transfer  the burden to integrators. I.e if a request is a
> new branch off master but it should go into  maint - we (integrators) would
> do an appropriate rebase. (we would do something equivalent if the
> contribution came in as a patch file)
>
> But so far we have been requiring contributors to know the workflow.
>
> Satish
>  ------------------------------
> From: Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov>
> Sent: ‎9/‎12/‎2014 7:08 PM
> To: For users of the development version of PETSc <petsc-dev at mcs.anl.gov>
> Subject: [petsc-dev] bitbucket pull requests
>
>
> The   Bitbucket pull request system isn’t that great for our needs.
>
> 1) the damn Merge button
> 2) Users should always request merging to master or maint but the
> integrators need to first merge to next and then check the tests and then
> merge to master (and maint) several and there is not a good way of tracking
> that.  It would be nice if each pull request tracked if it had been merged
> to next etc
>
>  BTW: people have done a good job in the last couple of days of cleaning
> up the pull requests but there is still some old stuff in there that needs
> cleaning.
>
>
>   Barry
>
>


-- 
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
experiments lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20140913/6e74e56c/attachment.html>