On Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:29:47 AM UTC+3, Joseph Martinot-Lagarde wrote: > > Well it's a matter of taste, I don't like google code interface at all. > Wiki pages is a minor inconvenient (if any) compared to the usability of > pull requests. >
What is the workflow you need from pull requests? For me the biggest problem in distributed project is still the properly illustrated branching strategy. I remember I've seen an extensive manual about proper Git process, but couldn't finish it due to the lack of serious branching experience. I am not saying that Mercurial doesn't need one. It is just the domain that is usually hard to cover in Git vs Mercurial comparisons. > There is also the possibility to have read/write mirror I guess, but I >>> have no clue of how it works... >>> >> >> Pull from Bitbucket, commit to Google Code, and it is synced around. No >> read/write mirror is possible without auto merges. >> > Updates: the official Bitbucket mirror is here - https://bitbucket.org/rirror/spyder (well, I took a freedom to mark it official as it is the only one that is open for suggestions) It is automatically updated at "45 * * * *" - every hour? Feel free to stack pull requests there and report what is bad about the process. > 2-stage commits really suxx. Use `hg record` if you're unsure about what >> you're committing. >> > > It sux for you maybe, but it is very logical to me to first choose the > modifications you want to commit, then validate the commit. It fits my > workflow very well. Thanks for `hg record`, it seems to be a direct > equivalent. > My workflow opens colored 'hg diff' in one pane and editor launched by 'hg ci' in another. Commit message template already contains list of all modified files, and diff on the left pane allows me to quickly review files I am not sure about. I find it very annoying in Git that if you caught omission after adding to staging area, you need to review diff in staged files with different command, and to revert the file addition with other command that is for other purpose. Enforced 2-step process in Git is absolutely not necessary - I never felt uncomfortable in SVN, HG or Bazaar because of that. Quite the opposite - I move work on unrelated changes into mercurial queue (like stash, but every MQ is a commit), so when I commit, it is always one change. > + easy selection line by line or block by block instead of whole files for >>> commits (using git gui) >>> >> >> 'hg record', no GUI required. >> > > GUI is not required, it just makes it easier. I usually prefer a good gui > to any command line. (Sadly good gui is not that common.) > Oh, you will like http://code.google.com/p/tortoisehg/ then. It is adorable. =) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "spyder" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/spyderlib. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
