Decide on how to handle multi-repos with Trilinos both short-term and long-term
Created by: bartlettroscoe
Next Action Status:
???
CC: @trilinos/framework
Blocking: #440, #176 (closed)
Description:
When Trilinos was trimmed down and moved to GitHub, several extra repos were split out into their own repos like MOOCHO, Sundance, CTrilinos, ForTrilinos, Mesquite, etc. There was a plan for managing these extra repos using the support for extra repos added for TriBITS to support CASL VERA development in the Goolge Doc Proposal for trimming down Trilinos repo which was started in late 2014 or so. Given that Trilinos was split up, I (@bartlettroscoe) assumed that the plan listed in that document was a reasonable approach to get these extra repos for inserted packages back into automated testing and for distribution in Trilinos releases (because CASL VERA has been doing this for years). Based on this assumption, I created the issue #176 (closed) to get this working for Trilinos, CCing the other Trilinos Framework team members. I think did some work on this approach and got many of these inserted packages back under automated testing and added full support for the usage of the TriBITS clone_extra_repos.py and gitdist scripts. However, my assumption that there was agreement to use the the TriBITS approached used by CASL VERA as an initial way to address multiple repositories in Trilinos was not founded. It seems that others did not agree with that decision.
Therefore, this Trilinos GitHub ticket is to drive and document the discussion of this topic and the decisions on how Triilnos should deal with multiple repos, both short-term and long-term.