Dev telecon log Jan 11 2016

This page is obsolete but has been retained for historical purposes.

Here are notes from the call on 1/11/16. Notes by Hank


  • Attendees: Hank, Eric, Burlen, Cyrus, Dave, Hari, Jeremy, Kathleen, Kevin, Paul, Brad, Gunther
  • ISC Tutorial: looking for someone to lead the tutorial. The tutorial is on June 19th (in Germany), and the proposal is due on Feb. 15th
  • Topics for future calls: we discussed various topics that we could/should discuss as a group (third party libraries, Qt5, VTK7, OpenGL V2, LibSim, VTK-m). Folks should brainstorm additional topics and we will discuss this again in the future.


The call topic was nominally devoted to our software development cycle, but we ended mostly focusing on the merits of a move to Git.

Four developers (Cyrus, Burlen, Paul, Hari) stated that they mainly used Git, and they strongly prefer it over SVN ("SVN feels antiquated now"). Burlen referenced VisIt's SVN branching scripts as inconvenient, and something that Git handles better.

Other developers voiced a lack of expertise/understanding of Git. This included Hank and Jeremy.

The following positive aspects were discussed:

  • removes barriers for new developers (assuming younger developers are using Git)
  • features of Git
  • improved possibility for pull request model (not discussed extensively)

The following negative aspects were discussed:

  • support for Windows is not as strong
    • that said, Burlen described some positive Windows+Git experiences with gitshell and cygwin (although Kathleen and Jeremy had tried and didn't like these options), and Hari mentioned MicroSoft is now pushing Git
  • our current model of storing tests and data leads to a 70GB repo. This is larger than recommended for Git, and would likely lead to us needing to change our model, i.e., splitting tests and data into separate repos.

The following points were made about whether or not to switch:

  • the tradeoff is one of perturbation for current developers vs benefits in the future
  • this may be a "VisIt 3.0" thing (VisIt 3 in Git, VisIt 2 in SVN)
  • "current SVN is working for the most part ... what is the urgency in switching"
  • who's doing the effort?