Hi, all! This is mainly aimed at Richard, but i would also like to hear input from those currently committing to the main repo...
Woul it be less administrative hassle, and help reduce "pollution" of the main repo (in the form of 26 branches - that's the current count) if, instead of granting commit access to the main repo (except for the core developers, who obviously need it), we instead did all "feature experimentation" in local clones of the main repo, and send "pull requests" to the dev team when appropriate (perhaps in the form of tickets, or a new artifact type called "pull request")? Or would that just complicate matters? Isn't fossil designed to allow that type of collaboration, or am i thinking in "git mode"? (Personally, i don't like the idea of my "intermediary crud" adding to the clone size of the main repo.) :-? -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
