simspark-devel

Re: [simspark-devel] CVS tagging

[Joschka B. <jos...@am...>]

Hi Sander,

On Feb 29, 2008, at 2:54 AM, Sander van Dijk wrote:

> I have aquestion about merging my branch with the CVS head. What is  
> the tagging protocol for the sserver repository? I have found  
> several systems (no tagging, tagging branch before merge to make  
> future merges easier, tag branch and target before and after  
> branching and merging..). What should I use and what naming style  
> should I use?

That's a good question, I think we don't actually have an established  
protocol yet. Tagging the target branch before and after the merge  
sounds reasonable I think. Any other opinions?

Cheers,
Joschka

Re: [simspark-devel] CVS tagging

[Sander v. D. <sgv...@gm...>]

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Joschka Boedecker <
jos...@am...> wrote:

> I think we don't actually have an established
> protocol yet. Tagging the target branch before and after the merge
> sounds reasonable I think. Any other opinions?
>

I think tagging the branch after merging with the trunk is good too, when
development on that branch might continue. This way on a second merge you
can easily apply only new changes, see [1] point 4.

Sander

Re: [simspark-devel] CVS tagging

[Joschka B. <jos...@am...>]

Hey Sander,

On Mar 3, 2008, at 6:23 AM, Sander van Dijk wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Joschka Boedecker <
> jos...@am...> wrote:
>
>> I think we don't actually have an established
>> protocol yet. Tagging the target branch before and after the merge
>> sounds reasonable I think. Any other opinions?
>>
>
> I think tagging the branch after merging with the trunk is good too,  
> when
> development on that branch might continue.

Yes, I agree.

> This way on a second merge you
> can easily apply only new changes, see [1] point 4.

Sorry, the reference was missing ;-)

Concerning naming the branches, I don't think we had anything  
established there either. Do you have a suggestion for a standard from  
now on?

Cheers,
Joschka

Re: [simspark-devel] CVS tagging

[Sander v. D. <sgv...@gm...>]

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Joschka Boedecker <
jos...@am...> wrote:

> Hey Sander,
>
> On Mar 3, 2008, at 6:23 AM, Sander van Dijk wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Joschka Boedecker <
> > jos...@am...> wrote:
> >
> >> I think we don't actually have an established
> >> protocol yet. Tagging the target branch before and after the merge
> >> sounds reasonable I think. Any other opinions?
> >>
> >
> > I think tagging the branch after merging with the trunk is good too,
> > when
> > development on that branch might continue.
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
> > This way on a second merge you
> > can easily apply only new changes, see [1] point 4.
>
> Sorry, the reference was missing ;-)


Oops that was supposed to be
http://smb.slac.stanford.edu/research/developments/blu-ice/dcsAdmin/node7.html
.

Concerning naming the branches, I don't think we had anything
> established there either. Do you have a suggestion for a standard from
> now on?



How about something like:

tag trunk before branching: BRANCHNAME_base
tag trunk before merge: BRANCHNAME_premergeN
tag trunk after merge: BRANCHNAME_postmergeN
tag branch after merge: BRANCHNAME_mergedN

where N is the number of the merge.

Looking around on the web you come along a lot of different conventions for
the BRANCHNAME itself: including the project name, version number of the
base it branched of, branching date, etc. IMHO these aren't really necessary
if you tag at the points I mentioned above, because then I think it isn't
too hard to deduce the extra data. However, perhaps including BRANCH or just
a B or something makes it easier to identify branches in the list of CVS
symbolic names.

Regards,

Sander

Re: [simspark-devel] CVS tagging

[Joschka B. <jos...@am...>]

Hey Sander,

On Mar 6, 2008, at 8:22 PM, Sander van Dijk wrote:

> On Mar 3, 2008, at 6:23 AM, Sander van Dijk wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Joschka Boedecker <
> > jos...@am...> wrote:
> >
> >> I think we don't actually have an established
> >> protocol yet. Tagging the target branch before and after the merge
> >> sounds reasonable I think. Any other opinions?
> >>
> >
> > I think tagging the branch after merging with the trunk is good too,
> > when
> > development on that branch might continue.
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
> > This way on a second merge you
> > can easily apply only new changes, see [1] point 4.
>
> Sorry, the reference was missing ;-)
>
> Oops that was supposed to be http://smb.slac.stanford.edu/research/developments/blu-ice/dcsAdmin/node7.html 
> .

OK, thank you.

> Concerning naming the branches, I don't think we had anything
> established there either. Do you have a suggestion for a standard from
> now on?
>
>
> How about something like:
>
> tag trunk before branching: BRANCHNAME_base
> tag trunk before merge: BRANCHNAME_premergeN
> tag trunk after merge: BRANCHNAME_postmergeN
> tag branch after merge: BRANCHNAME_mergedN
>
> where N is the number of the merge.

This sounds good.

> Looking around on the web you come along a lot of different  
> conventions for the BRANCHNAME itself: including the project name,  
> version number of the base it branched of, branching date, etc. IMHO  
> these aren't really necessary if you tag at the points I mentioned  
> above, because then I think it isn't too hard to deduce the extra  
> data.

I agree. Usually we just chose a name that let's deduce some  
information about what is going on in the branch, e.g. like win32 for  
the windows implementation.

> However, perhaps including BRANCH or just a B or something makes it  
> easier to identify branches in the list of CVS symbolic names.

OK good, so we would choose sth. like WIN32_BRANCH_merged2 for the  
above example after merging back for the second time, right?
Let's document this in the new developer's manual also.

Thanks,
Joschka