Open MPI logo

MTT Devel Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all MTT Devel mailing list

Subject: Re: [MTT devel] MTT: let's use git tags
From: Christoph Niethammer (niethammer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-30 05:46:52


Hello,

A fast forward merge does not create a single merge commit but takes all commits and applies them to the current branch.[1]
So this will do what Jeff intended without the necessity of deleting and recreating a static tag or editing version numbers in update scripts. ;)

Regards
Christoph

[1] http://ariya.ofilabs.com/2013/09/fast-forward-git-merge.html

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilles Gouaillardet" <gilles.gouaillardet_at_[hidden]>
To: "Development list for the MPI Testing Tool" <mtt-devel_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 4:06:34 AM
Subject: Re: [MTT devel] MTT: let's use git tags

Jeff,

What i meant by "less error prone" is "you use the stable branch by
default" so you do not checkout the dev/unstable
branch by default.

as you pointed, the level/frequency of MTT development is fairly low,
my idea would be to create a "dev" branch, and when the state of the dev
branch is "production ready", simply do a

git checkout master
git merge dev

that being said, i am far from mastering git and i cannot judge the pros
vs cons of this (merge) versus the fast forward
approach pointed by Christoph

Cheers,

Gilles

On 2014/06/27 16:11, Christoph Niethammer wrote:
> +1, for a stable branch which is *fast forwarded* to master when changes are confirmed to work.
> PS: Tags are intended to be static and not moved around in git as Dave says, instead you can sign them using gpg fortifying them even more. ;)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Goodell (dgoodell)" <dgoodell_at_[hidden]>
> To: "Development list for the MPI Testing Tool" <mtt-devel_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 2:47:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [MTT devel] MTT: let's use git tags
>
> Published Git tags are *not* movable (by design). You're better off making it a branch that you treat like a tag, if that's your desire. Even then, you might confuse someone who is less familiar with Git in some cases if you move that branch around.
>
> -Dave
>
>> On Jun 26, 2014, at 6:06 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> I've thought about this a little, and I'm still inclined to use the simple/lazy method of tags on master. Some random points, in no particular order:
>>
>> 1. master should always be for development, IMHO. If we start using a multi-branch scheme, then the branches should be for releases, etc.
>>
>> 2. MTT has always been distributed by VCS; we've never made discrete distributions (e.g., a tarball). As such, I'm comfortable labeling it as a bit "different" than how most other software is delivered -- e.g., using git tags on master is "good enough".
>>
>> 3. The level/frequency of MTT development is fairly low; it would be good to keep the bar as low as possible for amount of work required to deploy a new feature to the OMPI community for MTT testing. Meaning: a new feature or bug fix pops up in MTT every once in a while -- we generally don't have commits that are being developed and merged to a release series in an out-of-order fashion. So doing a few commits for a new feature/bug fix and then tagging the result is fine/good enough. If there *are* interleaved commits of multiple new features/bug fixes, we can simply wait until all are done before tagging.
>>
>> 4. I realize this scheme is not as flexible as a release branch (where you can merge new features/bug fixes out of order), but the level of MTT development is so low that I'd prefer the slightly-simpler model of just tagging (vs. merging/etc.).
>>
>> 5. I'm not sure how using a release branch is less error-prone...? I understand git branching is cheap, but if we have a separate branch, then we either need to remember to cherry-pick every commit we want or we have to continually merge from master->release_branch. Seems like more work/steps to follow, and therefore more error-prone.
>>
>> 6. The point about not being able to automate getting the latest stable MTT is a good one. How about using numerical tags just to delineate our intended "release" points, but also have a moveable tag, e.g., "ompi-mtt-testing" that will always point to the latest "release" that we want the OMPI MTT test community to use? That way, you can always "git checkout ompi-mtt-testing" to get the latest/greatest.
>>
>> (...to that end, I've created/pushed an ompi-mtt-testing tag and pointed to the same place as v3.0.0)
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 8:30 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet <gilles.gouaillardet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 for using branches : branch usage is less error prone plus git makes
>>> branching unexpensive.
>>>
>>> as far as i am concerned, i'd rather have the default master branch is
>>> the for the "stable" version
>>> and have one branch called devel (or dev, or whatever) :
>>> - git clone => get the stable (aka master) branch by default (safe by
>>> default)
>>> - if you use the devel branch, one can only assume you know what you are
>>> doing ...
>>>
>>> That being said, tags on the master branch is a good practice
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Gilles
>>>
>>>> On 2014/06/25 2:33, Christoph Niethammer wrote:
>>>> As an alternative idea: What about using branches to mark "stable" and "development"?
>>>> Tags are for fixed versions and so users will not receive updates unless they update their update scripts manually?!
>>>> When "development" is stable just merge into "stable".
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mtt-devel mailing list
>>> mtt-devel_at_[hidden]
>>> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mtt-devel
>>> Link to this post: http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/mtt-devel/2014/06/0636.php
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Squyres
>> jsquyres_at_[hidden]
>> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mtt-devel mailing list
>> mtt-devel_at_[hidden]
>> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mtt-devel
>> Link to this post: http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/mtt-devel/2014/06/0639.php
> _______________________________________________
> mtt-devel mailing list
> mtt-devel_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mtt-devel
> Link to this post: http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/mtt-devel/2014/06/0640.php
> _______________________________________________
> mtt-devel mailing list
> mtt-devel_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mtt-devel
> Link to this post: http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/mtt-devel/2014/06/0642.php

_______________________________________________
mtt-devel mailing list
mtt-devel_at_[hidden]
Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mtt-devel
Link to this post: http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/mtt-devel/2014/06/0642.php