[Users] Einstein Toolkit Meeting Minutes

Frank Loeffler knarf at cct.lsu.edu
Thu Jul 17 09:24:24 CDT 2014


On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:51:08AM -0400, Barry Wardell wrote:
> * There are extra branches (e.g. start, v1) which are not in any way
> connected to the rest of the history. These were created by the cvs2svn
> script.

Yes. These branches did actually exist back in the cvs repos. I don't
think any of these are important.

> * Some of the commits creating tags also introduce changes to the tree
> (files). These commits were automatically created by the cvs2svn script.

Why is that a problem? Does the conversion choke if commits do multiple
things at once?

> * Some branches/tags (e.g. STABLE, LATEST) were not created at the same
> time across different repositories. None of the ones that I encountered had
> what I would useful content (e.g. having a STABLE tag pointing to some
> point long in the past is not particularly useful).

I agree. We would very likely be better off without them.

> Could you suggest an example of a more "badly behaved" arrangement?

I didn't mean that other arrangements are "badly behaved". I called
CactusBase "well behaved" because it did not receive as many commits
from not as many authors and some of the others probably did.
EinsteinInitial, or GRHydro would be more "demanding" examples.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20140717/917e951b/attachment.bin 

More information about the Users mailing list