[Insight-developers] SimpleITK - now using next branch

Thu Mar 17 17:09:55 EDT 2011

Gabe,

  OK, that makes more sense to me.  When are we going to start?  and who
will keep master and next in step?

  I guess I was thinking that next would be a ³meta-topic² branch.  Really,
I don¹t have any strong opinions at all, given my poor git track record...
Brad just tells me what to do and I do it...

Cheers,
-dan

On 3/17/11 4:06 PM, "Gabe Hart" <gabe.hart at kitware.com> wrote:

>    Hmmm... I guess we're looking at two slightly different workflows (I'll
> call them yours and mine, but I'm very up for discussion).  Here are a couple
> of points about the two:
>  
>  In yours, topics can only go into next once they are completely finished,
> otherwise future topics may be based off of buggy versions of the topic.  Your
> master branch is essentially equivalent to a set of tags that point out stable
> locations in the history of next.  Also, once a topic is merged into next it
> is really hard to remove it because other work will depend on it.
>  
>  In mine, the next branch acts as an integration branch where mostly finished
> topics get merged to make sure that they play well together.  Once a topic is
> fully matured it gets merged into next AND merged into master, so master stays
> relatively current with next.  This way when branches are based off of master,
> your are working on the most current "Fully stable" version of the toolkit.
> This model really works best when there's some sort of QA step inserted
> between the initial merge to next and the final merge to master and next.
>  
>  For our purposes, I'm not sure that mine is necessary unless we insert some
> sort of QA step into our process.  Again, I think I missed some of the initial
> discussion on switching to the next/master workflow, so my method may not be
> at all what was talked about there.
>  
>  -Gabe
>  
>  On 03/17/2011 04:41 PM, Daniel Blezek wrote:
>>  Re: SimpleITK - now using next branch 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
>>   
>  
>  
>  

-- 
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/20110317/4be3ef23/attachment.htm>