[Paraview] ParaView superbuild git question (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Utkarsh Ayachit]

Tag "v4.2.0-1" is now available on the ParaView Superbuild repo.

Utkarsh


On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Utkarsh Ayachit
<utkarsh.ayachit at kitware.com> wrote:
> Doh! I see I added the tag but forgot to toggle the git/branch name,
> which for 4.1.0 I had set to be "release". I'll add a new "v4.2.0-1"
> tag fixing this issue.
>
> Again, really sorry about this :/.
>
> Utkarsh
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Angelini, Richard C (Rick) CIV USARMY
> ARL (US) <richard.c.angelini.civ at mail.mil> wrote:
>> Yes - we want the 4.2.0 tag on the Superbuild (and for all future
>> production releases).   In an earlier message on the this thread, Corey
>> implied that it was no longer supported ….  of course, at this point we’re
>> more or less done  with the 4.2.0 implementation.  Next time, it would be
>> nice to have when the production release is announced!   8-)
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> Rick Angelini
>> USArmy Research Laboratory
>> CISD/HPC Architectures Team
>> Phone:  410-278-6266
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/14/14, 8:45 AM, "Utkarsh Ayachit" <utkarsh.ayachit at kitware.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Rick,
>>>
>>>Are you taking referring to  the "v4.1.0" tag on the superbuild repo?
>>>I'll add the v4.2.0 tag soon -- it just slipped my mind. Sorry about
>>>that.
>>>
>>>Utkarsh
>>>
>>>On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Angelini, Richard C (Rick) CIV USARMY
>>>ARL (US) <richard.c.angelini.civ at mail.mil> wrote:
>>>> When doing a clean production build, it’s very  useful to be able to do
>>>>a
>>>> “git pull” to get all of the correct tarballs downloaded.   The
>>>> functionality that was previous to 4.2.0 was exactly appropriate - “git
>>>> checkout v4.1.0”
>>>>
>>>> The alternative (as I understand it) is to enable GIT and do a build
>>>>from
>>>> the development tree.  (This will pull all of the tarballs for the
>>>> supporting libraries).   Then re-run the build with “GIT=OFF” , manually
>>>> download the production tarball, and then re-run the build.   Does this
>>>> sound like the best solution?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________
>>>> Rick Angelini
>>>> USArmy Research Laboratory
>>>> CISD/HPC Architectures Team
>>>> Phone:  410-278-6266
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/11/14, 6:04 PM, "Cory Quammen" <cory.quammen at kitware.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Simon,
>>>>>
>>>>>What you are doing as a workaround is indeed how production builds
>>>>>should be created. The ParaView superbuild is now set up to check out
>>>>>the master branch of ParaView, which varies day to day. In 4.1 and
>>>>>prior to that, it was set up to check out out the release branch,
>>>>>which was far more static. If you disable ParaView_FROM_GIT in CMake,
>>>>>it will download the release source tar ball and build from that,
>>>>>essentially what you have been doing.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll update the superbuild wiki instructions to note this.
>>>>>
>>>>>Best regards,
>>>>>Cory
>>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Su, Simon M CTR USARMY ARL (US)
>>>>><simon.m.su.ctr at mail.mil> wrote:
>>>>>> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>>>>>> Caveats: NONE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView/Superbuild mentioned, if I want
>>>>>>to
>>>>>> build a specific version, I will do
>>>>>>
>>>>>> git clone git://paraview.org/ParaViewSuperbuild.git
>>>>>> cd ParaViewSuperbuild
>>>>>> git checkout v4.1.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That has always worked for me for v4.1.0 tag
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But with v4.2.0 release, if I do the following on different days,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> git clone git://paraview.org/ParaViewSuperbuild.git
>>>>>> cd ParaViewSuperbuild
>>>>>> git checkout v4.2.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am getting v4.2.0-${SOME HASH NUMBER} that is different every time.
>>>>>>Am I
>>>>>> missing something? This is causing me problem when I am trying to get
>>>>>>the
>>>>>> same version of ParaView mesa and osmesa build for client/server mode.
>>>>>>I end
>>>>>> up doing a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -DParaView_URL=../paraview/ParaView-v4.2.0-source.tar.gz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To get around the problem. Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> -simon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>>>>>> Caveats: NONE
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Powered by www.kitware.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
>>>>>>http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at:
>>>>>>http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>>>>> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview
>>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>Powered by www.kitware.com
>>>>>
>>>>>Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
>>>>>http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at:
>>>>>http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView
>>>>>
>>>>>Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>>>>http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Powered by www.kitware.com
>>>>
>>>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
>>>>http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>>>>
>>>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at:
>>>>http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView
>>>>
>>>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>>> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview
>>