After using git for a while with a group of other 5 people who sometimes forgot our policy that only one of us had the authority (actually the responsibility) to work with the "master" branch, having to clean each "mistake" later, we discovered the platform we had been using actually offered a feature to enforce this.
I'm talking about gitlab and the feature is "protected branch" in which no one but the users with "master" permissions were able to push to. So one of us had the master role, and the others were mere "developers". That way every single feature was reviewed by someone before merging. Then the interface also offered a cute way to notify the master for needed action. It's called "merge request" (similar to pull requests on github). In case you want to read more, check: https://about.gitlab.com/2014/11/26/keeping-your-code-protected/ I wondered back then, what would it take to implement this for fossil. The first thing that popped to my head was the protocol. I gave a quick glance back then, and I recall seeing no way of detecting a "push" to a specific branch. All I saw were deltas and stuff like that. Am I wrong? or is there a way the server could forbid an user to push to some branches and give an error? In that way he could go to his local repo, move the commits and push back to a separated, non locked branch, and request for a merge this with the trunk (even if it is over email). Btw Mr. Hipp, I read that sometimes you visit Github looking for ideas. Perhaps you could check (if you haven't) gitlab, as I guess is more suited for direct comparison with fossil, as both are stand alone (well, gitlab runs on a server made in Ruby) vs. a company that makes profit holding millions of repositories.
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
