On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote: > Alexandre Vassalotti writes: > > > This makes me remember that we will have to decide how we will > > reorganize our workflow. For this, we can either be conservative and > > keep the current CVS-style development workflow--i.e., a few main > > repositories where all developers can commit to. > > That was the original idea of PEP 374, that was a presumption under > which I wrote my part of it, I think we should stick with it. As > people develop personal workflows, they can suggest them, and/or > changes in the public workflow needed to support them. But there > should be a working sample implementation before thinking about > changes to the workflow. > Aahz convinced me earlier that changing the current workflow would be stupid. So, I now think the best thing to do is to provide a CVS-style environment similar to what we have currently, and let the workflow evolve naturally as developers gain more confidence with Mercurial. > > > Or we could drink the kool-aid and go with a kernel-style > > development workflow--i.e., each developer maintains his own branch > > and pull changes from each others. > > Can you give examples of projects using Mercurial that do that? > Mercurial itself is developed using that style, I believe. -- Alexandre
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4