>
> PS other than the code peculiar to our experiment, I have made a little modification to the MIDAS install
> Makefile (I noticed that there is an "install" target but not an "uninstall" target so I wrote it).
> If you are interested, I could make a merge request on BitBucket, just let me know.
>
Hmm... for most experiments, we do not "install" midas. I should probably remove the "install" target from the Makefile.
K.O.
> Bests
> Giorgio
>
> > Hi, Giorgio - you are asking excellent questions. I will try to answer them, but as ever, there are no
> > easy answers.
> >
> > In general, the top of the midas "develop" branch is "the best midas there is".
> >
> > So for a new experiment, it is a reasonable place to start. Of course you can see
> > that there is quite a bit of commit activity going on, however, most substantial
> > changes are done on separate branches, where we try the new code, debug
> > it and test it. Only when the new code is "ready", we commit it to the "develop"
> > branch. Then, most often, we find some more last minute post-merge bugs,
> > and fix them right then and there on the head of the "develop" branch. Eventually
> > the dust settles and we have stable code that stays stable for a long time.
> >
> > For example, right now we are waiting for the dust to settle on the change
> > of the MIDAS URL scheme, which was necessitated by needs of several experiments
> > that have more-complex-then-usual https proxy configurations. Unusual today,
> > but more common as we move forward, I think.
> >
> > So if the head of the "develop" branch does not work for you, we encourage
> > that you file a bug report (here on this forum or on the bitbucket issue tracker).
> >
> > While we try to sort out your problem, you can fall back to a previous version
> > of midas:
> >
> > a) go back to one of the older "midas-YYYY-MM-X" tags
> > b) go back to one of the release candidate branches "feature/midas-YYYY-MM".
> >
> > But if you have an already running system and you already have a working
> > instance of MIDAS, you do not have to update it to the latest version
> > unless you need some newest feature or you suffer from a bug
> > that has been fixed in a newer version.
> >
> > In general, I find that it is fairly safe to update a working instance of MIDAS to
> > the latest code. But do keep your old working copy, if there is trouble, you can
> > always go back to something that works.
> >
> > Now to your questions:
> >
> > > For a running experiment that needs software stability what branch of the MIDAS
> > > repository is better suited?
> >
> > easy to answer. the most stable is the version you are using right now (doh!). each time
> > you upgrade, there is a risk that something will go wrong.
> >
> > if you start from scratch, use the head of the "develop" branch (the latest and greatest),
> > if you run into trouble, report the trouble and update to a newer version with your
> > trouble fixed, or go back in time to previous tags and release candidate branches (as I described
> > above).
> >
> > > The master branch or the develop branch?
> >
> > the "develop" branch.
> >
> > > Moreover, what point in time do you think is more stable?
> >
> > I find that it is impossible to have a stable-stable-stable version of midas
> > because the rest of the world flows forward in time. Old versions of midas
> > stop compiling because of OS and compiler changes; they stop running
> > because of OS or web browser or hardware changes. Then somebody
> > always asks for new features and new or old bugs surface constantly.
> >
> > But we try to mark some "good" spots using git tags and release branches,
> > however the more far you go back in time, the more likely the code will
> > not even compile anymore.
> >
> >
> > K.O.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Hello!
> > > My name is Giorgio Pintaudi and I am a Ph.D. student at Yokohama National
> > > University (Japan). I also happen to be a T2K collaborator.
> > > I am currently developing the DAQ software for a T2K near detector called WAGASCI
> > > (different from ND280) and we recently decided to adopt MIDAS as a user
> > > interface.
> > > Now I am using the "develop" branch of the MIDAS BitBucket repository: I merge
> > > the remote repository every now and then with my local copy and that is fine ...
> > > but on the 25th of April our experiment is officially starting and I was
> > > wondering which version of MIDAS should I use for "production".
> > > So my question is:
> > > For a running experiment that needs software stability what branch of the MIDAS
> > > repository is better suited? The master branch or the develop branch? Moreover,
> > > what point in time do you think is more stable?
> > > Best regards
> > > Giorgio |