<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
hi all,<br>
<br>
i'm not going to try to thread my responses in between<br>
what's already there, sorry!<br>
<br>
git uses 'master' where svn uses 'trunk' so that makes<br>
sense to make this change. we've been doing our<br>
main development on 'rma_trunk' for a long time now<br>
so this is a good time to fix it.<br>
<br>
i think 'classic' was in the sense of 'coke classic' - the older<br>
original version and i like it. i can't think of another term<br>
for that branch that would be less confusing, so keeping<br>
'classic_kodiak', 'classic_lanai' seems good to me.<br>
<br>
i like the analogy of mac os x releases which have version<br>
numbers as well as names. i looked at tim's document and<br>
the only quibble i might have is that we might want to make<br>
the first version number move faster than 1, 2 - not because<br>
it's not an accurate suggestion but because it might look to<br>
management like we're doing more work if the numbers get<br>
bigger faster. (yes, that's a cynical opinion - but that doesn't<br>
make it wrong!)<br>
<br>
n.<br>
<br>
p.s. i took dart and individuals off the cc list because dart-dev<br>
should have all of dart plus a few outside dart developers on it.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/4/19 10:46 AM, Tim Hoar wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAL+SK10RGi8vxQcR8f0mARDvovPQpT+ZJLnAG3OAL40eehZjvQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
My responses follow Kevin's questions/comments.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr"
class="m_-5878271033602014389gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Tim Hoar
<div>Data Assimilation Research Section</div>
<div>National Center for Atmospheric Research</div>
<div><a href="mailto:thoar@ucar.edu"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">thoar@ucar.edu</a></div>
<div>303.497.1708</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 9:30
AM Kevin Raeder <<a href="mailto:raeder@ucar.edu"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">raeder@ucar.edu</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Tim,<br>
thanks for organizing names at this opportune moment.<br>
Here are my questions and thoughts.<br>
<br>
For the big picture, are we moving away from the strategy
of<br>
"release after major improvements and name it after an
island"?<br>
Is the alternative to just tag a version of the public
git(hub)<br>
master, after it has passed all the tests?<br>
The naming strategy for the future could or should
determine<br>
the renaming strategy for the old stuff.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As per the release strategy, naming things after islands
and then re-releasing things with the same name can create
confusion. Most everything uses 'semantic versioning', which
I describe at the end of the following document: <a
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SFBt7YT0yZ7o2BD4_3CEhKNK_ZfGDCrhR9gr-EoAFcM/edit"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SFBt7YT0yZ7o2BD4_3CEhKNK_ZfGDCrhR9gr-EoAFcM/edit</a>
'DART_conversion_process' I'm proposing a V x.y.z
approach, and have a table that converts our svn releases to
the semantic versions. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The timing and motivation of when to create a release
stays the same. Yes, tagging a version of the public version
is a 'release'. Whether we name it after an island or use
semantic versioning - or do something like what apple does
('Mohave' is OSX 10.14.5) was something I was going to
discuss next week or so. I view that as a separate issue
from what we name our branches.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Are we abandoning the "trunk" terminology in
favor of "master",<br>
even though we're keeping git's "branches"?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That is my porposal. Considering we have not been using
'trunk' for several years now, and had to rename our primary
branch as 'rma_trunk', it seems to me that 'rma_trunk'
fulfills the git role usually filled by 'master'.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">I'm not such a fan of "classic" because it
implies to me<br>
some sort of standard, tried-and-true, always ready
version,<br>
while this version is more like "the old version you might<br>
want to use if we didn't upgrade the part that you want."<br>
My alternative would depend on whether we continue to use
islands.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>No help. I actually thought about starting these with
'zzz_' so they would appear as the last set of branches
when people listed the branches or used the pull-down menu
of branches on GitHub.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Dropping 'rma_' sounds good. Whether it is
replaced by something<br>
to denote Manhattan (or later release or tag names)
depends on <br>
our development strategy for the future.<br>
Generally it's nice to have branch names<br>
that communicate what's in them; the original version,<br>
the major modification or project, etc., but it takes<br>
some discipline to merge a branch back into the trunk<br>
before its name becomes outdated.<br>
<br>
<div>If rma_trunk is the thing that was released as
Manhattan,</div>
<div>then I'm fine with "The svn 'rma_trunk' branch will
be named 'master'".</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Exactly. </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I'm very tripped up by<br>
"(the traditional name for git development branches)"<br>
My understanding of master is that it is the base<br>
from which development branches are made. It is not<br>
modified until all the development work is done<br>
and merged into the master.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What I was trying to convey is that 'master' is to git
what 'trunk' is to svn. Subsequent branches are generally
made from 'master', and get reintegrated into master. I did
not mean to imply that master should be for development, but
do mean that master is the 'bleeding edge' in that it is
generally newer than what is released. Sorry for any
confusion.<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Kevin<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at
5:31 PM Tim Hoar <<a href="mailto:thoar@ucar.edu"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">thoar@ucar.edu</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">I am in the process of converting the svn
DART repository to a git repository that will be
available on GitHub.
<div>There will be a private GitHub repository for
development of branches that have private svn
repositories.</div>
<div>After I verify the private GitHub repo is working
correctly and has all the desired content, we will
create another</div>
<div>public GitHub repo with just the public branches.<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This seems like the right time to make some
choices.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Since a git repo traditionally has all the
branches available, I was wondering it it might be
appropriate to adopt some</div>
<div>sort of convention about branch names. Should
all the branches based on the 'pre-Manhattan' file
layout start with a 'classic_' prefix?</div>
<div>It would be easy to document that any
'classic_' branch is in maintenance mode and will
not get any more development.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are a slew of branches that use the
Manhattan layout ... most of them start with
'rma_' which means little to</div>
<div>most people. Compound that with the fact that
there are some 'rma_' branches that use the
'classic' file layout, and you see how</div>
<div>things can get misleading.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I propose that all the branches with the
'classic' layout get a 'classic' prefix, and any
branch that uses the Manhattan layout simply use</div>
<div>the branch name ... and we drop the 'rma_' from
the branch name if necessary.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The svn 'trunk' branch will be renamed
'classic'</div>
<div>The svn 'rma_trunk' branch will be named
'master' (the traditional name for git
development branches)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please weigh in with your preferences/opinions
as soon as possible. </div>
<div>Any and all advice is appreciated.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks -- Tim </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>P.S. Also please be aware that the svn
repository has been made readonly. We have a
working git repository, but I want to</div>
<div>make the branch name changes (if necessary) as
soon as possible and then I will push to GitHub.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sincerely, Tim - on behalf of the DART team.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"
class="gmail-m_-5878271033602014389gmail-m_2100965855764047686gmail-m_9075594253017110111gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Tim Hoar
<div>Data Assimilation Research Section</div>
<div>National Center for Atmospheric
Research</div>
<div><a href="mailto:thoar@ucar.edu"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">thoar@ucar.edu</a></div>
<div>303.497.1708</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>