2 |
<html> |
<html> |
3 |
<head> |
<head> |
4 |
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> |
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> |
5 |
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686) [Netscape]"> |
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1 i686) [Netscape]"> |
6 |
<meta name="Author" content="Chris Hill"> |
<meta name="Author" content="Chris Hill"> |
7 |
<title>MITgcm CVS policy</title> |
<title>MITgcm CVS policy</title> |
8 |
</head> |
</head> |
10 |
|
|
11 |
<center> |
<center> |
12 |
<h1> |
<h1> |
13 |
MITgcm CVS policy</h1></center> |
MITgcm CVS policy</h1></center> |
14 |
|
|
15 |
<h2> |
<h2> |
16 |
Introduction</h2> |
Introduction</h2> |
21 |
of ways. It is designed to provide a system for storing arbitrary files |
of ways. It is designed to provide a system for storing arbitrary files |
22 |
in a way that allows the change history of the individual files to be tracked. |
in a way that allows the change history of the individual files to be tracked. |
23 |
If CVS is used without any other policy the result can be a collection |
If CVS is used without any other policy the result can be a collection |
24 |
of files each of which has complex, multiply branched set of interelated |
of files each of which has complex, multiply branched set of inter-related |
25 |
versions. This sort of CVS repository can be come like a library where |
versions. This sort of CVS repository can be come like a library where |
26 |
books are simply stored in a huge heap. Although nothing is actually lost, |
books are simply stored in a huge heap. Although nothing is actually lost, |
27 |
the task of finding a coherent collection of material soon becomes impossible. |
the task of finding a coherent collection of material soon becomes impossible. |
28 |
<p>The policies we employ address two areas |
<p>The policies we employ address tree areas |
29 |
<ol> |
<ol> |
30 |
<li> |
<li> |
31 |
Maintaining an orderly and easily identifiable, coherent set of evolving |
Maintaining an orderly and easily identifiable, coherent set of evolving |
33 |
|
|
34 |
<li> |
<li> |
35 |
Allowing concurrent, on-going development of product components.</li> |
Allowing concurrent, on-going development of product components.</li> |
36 |
|
|
37 |
|
<li> |
38 |
|
Making the integration of achieved developments easy, rapid, organized |
39 |
|
and clear.</li> |
40 |
</ol> |
</ol> |
41 |
|
|
42 |
<h2> |
<h2> |
57 |
only policy that applies to development trees is that this style of tree |
only policy that applies to development trees is that this style of tree |
58 |
is not intended to be used for providing a "checkpoint" distribution. Tagged |
is not intended to be used for providing a "checkpoint" distribution. Tagged |
59 |
configurations of tools built from this style of tree can be distributed, |
configurations of tools built from this style of tree can be distributed, |
60 |
but because these trees do not have any polcies regarding testing of functionality, |
but because these trees do not have any policies regarding testing of functionality, |
61 |
platform coverage or documentation these trees are not allowed to form |
platform coverage or documentation these trees are not allowed to form |
62 |
the basis of "checkpoint" distrbutions or formal "releases". Other policies |
the basis of "checkpoint" distributions or formal "releases". Other policies |
63 |
can be defined by individuals users of these trees but there are no further |
can be defined by individuals users of these trees but there are no further |
64 |
global policies. The MITGCM repository development_tree/ subdirectory is |
global policies. The MITGCM repository development_tree/ sub-directory |
65 |
reserved for holding development trees. Development trees also serve as |
is reserved for holding development trees. Development trees also serve |
66 |
experimental areas for exploring new code management policies. |
as experimental areas for exploring new code management policies. |
67 |
<h2> |
<h2> |
68 |
Checkpoint tree policies</h2> |
Checkpoint tree policies</h2> |
69 |
Checkpoint trees are intended to provide structured storage areas for holding |
Checkpoint trees are intended to provide structured storage areas for holding |
122 |
<li> |
<li> |
123 |
Checkpoint tagging</li> |
Checkpoint tagging</li> |
124 |
|
|
125 |
<br>No code should be left in limbo. Checking in code and then leaving |
<br>No code should be left in limbo (un-tagged) for extended periods. On |
126 |
it in the repository untagged is bad. When you check in code you are creating |
the other hand it's unnecessary to create a checkpoint tag for every little |
127 |
a new checkpoint. That means you don't check in some code which you "know" |
change. Checkpoint tags should be made after a particularly significant |
128 |
works 100% and then go away for two weeks. When you start checking in code |
code modification or otherwise on a regular basis, say bi-weekly. Very |
129 |
you make sure you have time to do the process end-to-end as described in |
often we set a list of goals to be reached by the next checkpoint which |
130 |
section 2. |
sometimes takes more than two weeks to achieve. Obviously, in this case |
131 |
|
a bi-weekly checkpoint would not be useful. |
132 |
<li> |
<li> |
133 |
Release tagging</li> |
Release tagging</li> |
134 |
|
|
139 |
<li> |
<li> |
140 |
Branches</li> |
Branches</li> |
141 |
|
|
142 |
<br>Branches are to be used for bug-fixes and code patches to releases |
<br>Branches are a useful tool for making changes prior to checkpoints |
143 |
only. All other changes e.g. totally new features, bug-fixes to checkpoints |
without breaking other working versions but it must be understood that |
144 |
are introduced by moving checkpoint levels forward. The only historical |
branches are short-lived and that releases and checkpoints not be made |
145 |
code maintenance that is employed is for fixes and patches to formal releases |
from a branch. Branches are especially useful for adding totally |
146 |
- not checkpoints.</ol> |
<br>new features. bug-fixes to checkpoints are introduced by moving checkpoint |
147 |
|
levels forward. The only historical code maintenance that s employed is |
148 |
|
for fixes and patches to formal releases - not checkpoints.</ol> |
149 |
|
|
150 |
|
<h1> |
151 |
|
Someone checked-in broken code so not my code doesn't work?</h1> |
152 |
|
You have several options: |
153 |
|
<ol> |
154 |
|
<li> |
155 |
|
Politely email everyone at support@mitgcm.org asking what has happened |
156 |
|
and that it be fixed?</li> |
157 |
|
|
158 |
|
<li> |
159 |
|
Figure out why the new code is broken, fix it, check it in and proudly |
160 |
|
send a message to support@mitgcm.org to show how constructive you are.</li> |
161 |
|
|
162 |
|
<li> |
163 |
|
Complain that the quality of work is too low and then do nothing to fix |
164 |
|
the code.<br> |
165 |
|
<BR></li> |
166 |
|
|
167 |
|
<br>We advise you to only use the third option if you are confident that |
168 |
|
your own contributions to the code are bug-free, well written, documented |
169 |
|
and fool proof. :)</ol> |
170 |
|
|
171 |
<h2> |
<h2> |
172 |
These policies are causing me a big problem, what can I do?</h2> |
These policies are causing me a big problem, what can I do?</h2> |