[Insight-developers] SimpleITK - now using next branch

[Daniel Blezek]

Hi Gabe,

  Can you enlighten me a bit here.  If we don¹t bring changes back into
master, how can I build on what is currently being done in SimpleITK?

Should I do this?

git checkout ­b SIMPLEITK-1-some-work origin/master
git rebase origin/next   # Should I do this? is this bad?
git commit
git commit
git checkout origin/next
git merge ‹no-ff SIMPLEITK-1-some-work


Is this right?  It¹s goes a bit in the face of some of the other guides I¹ve
seen.

http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
http://robertelwell.info/blog/git-svn-wrap-up/

My understanding is that we should create topic branches from ³next², and
merge them back into next.  When we are ready for a ³release², we merge next
into master.

Is this incorrect?

Thanks,
-dan




On 3/17/11 10:21 AM, "Gabe Hart" <gabe.hart at kitware.com> wrote:

>    Shoot... one more thing I forgot that has probably already been discussed,
> but is really important.  All topic branches MUST be based on master and not
> next.  I got into a lot of trouble by basing things on dev (our version of
> next) when I first started using this workflow.
>  
>  -Gabe
>  
>  On 03/17/2011 10:58 AM, Bradley Lowekamp wrote:
>> Gabe, 
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Please share that check. I only had the following:
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> if( NOT ITK_USE_REVIEW )
>> # TODO need to check ITK configuration to verify that it has the needed
>> modules
>> #  message(FATAL_ERROR "Please reconfigure ITK by turning ITK_USE_REVIEW ON")
>> endif()
>>   
>> 
>>  Brad
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> On Mar 17, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Gabe Hart wrote:
>>  
>>  
>>>  
>>>  Good catch.  I remember some discussion about using next, but then was out
>>> of the loop for a while, so I haven't been good about checking what is
>>> already in next.  I'll try to be better about checking there before I push
>>> ahead with new ideas.
>>>  
>>>  As far as this topic goes, I did manage to get things compiled and linked
>>> against the modularized version by just adding a check to see if
>>> "ITK-Review" is in the ITK_MODULES_ENABLED list after finding ITK, but all
>>> of the tests fail when compiled this way.  I'll abandon this issue since it
>>> seems like it's already being taken care of.
>>>  
>>>  -Gabe
>>>  
>>>  On 03/17/2011 10:45 AM, Bradley Lowekamp wrote:
>>>> Gabe, 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> I see you added a new issue into JIRA that is basically a duplicate:
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> https://itk.icts.uiowa.edu/jira/browse/SIMPLEITK-23
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> I make the link and commented about the issue.
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> As this has been already addressed and merged in the next branch, I must
>>>> ask if you are aware that we are trying to use the next branch for
>>>> integration of topics?
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> Brad
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> BTW: I am CC ing the developers list as Luis has suggested that our
>>>> off-list SimpleITK discussions should really be going to the developers
>>>> list. I would still like to maintain the convention of including SimpleITK
>>>> in the subject, so that mail filtering is easy.
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>   
>>>> ========================================================
>>>>  
>>>> Bradley Lowekamp
>>>>  
>>>> Lockheed Martin Contractor for
>>>>  
>>>> Office of High Performance Computing and Communications
>>>>  
>>>> National Library of Medicine
>>>>  
>>>> blowekamp at mail.nih.gov
>>>>  
>>>>   
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  

-- 
Daniel Blezek, PhD
Medical Imaging Informatics Innovation Center

P 127 or (77) 8 8886
T 507 538 8886
E blezek.daniel at mayo.edu

Mayo Clinic
200 First St. S.W.
Harwick SL-44
Rochester, MN 55905
mayoclinic.org
"It is more complicated than you think." -- RFC 1925

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.itk.org/mailman/private/insight-developers/attachments/20110317/ae786d1d/attachment.htm>