On 10.01.2014 17:30, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> * Albert Cervera i Areny: " Re: [tryton-dev] What is your internal
>   workflow" (Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:44:49 +0100):
> 
>> 2014/1/9 Mathias Behrle <[email protected]>:
>>> * Jean C: " [tryton-dev] What is your internal workflow" (Wed, 8 Jan 2014
>>>   09:34:59 +0100):
>>>
>>>> We are currently using mercurial with bitbucket. We want to try on the
>>>> pull-request workflow, but we understood it may be difficult regarding the
>>>> way mercurial manages branches.
>>>
>>> One of your primary decisions will be, if you want to maintain versions
>>> older than current. If you want to do so with mercurial, the layout from
>>> tryton.org seems still the way to go (while I have to admit, that it is
>>> looong ago, that I looked at the branching capabilities of mercurial).
>>> Publishing on the usual hosters will be tedious.
>>> If you don't intend to do maintenance of different versions, you can choose
>>> the same way as Zikzakmedia and NaN·tic and just publish the current branch.
>>
>> Note that we created 3.0 branches for all repositories, and will add
>> 3.2 when it is released, etc.
> 
> Good news. Looking forward to your experience with series maintenance on 
> 'real'
> mercurial branches.
> I suppose, you meant that you currently work on default = 2.9/3.0 and that you
> will branch as soon as 3.2 is out (apart from account_es*, which have 2.8, 
> like
> Sergi said)?
> 
> I agree, that the choice of VCS is mostly a matter of habit. 
> Out of interest I made a short test on branching and transplanting with
> mercurial. As long as you intend to work with persistent branches, there seems
> no problem. What I am really going to miss for my everyday work is the removal
> of a (feature/hotfix/whatever) branch. It seems in mercurial you only can 
> close
> them and they will be in history forever. Perhaps I am not using the right
> workflow, because I am accustomed to git.
> Not a point in publishing series branches, but important for me in daily
> development.

Maybe you should have a look at Mercurial Queues as an alternative to
Git's feature branches. I often use a short series of 1-5 patches (which
might be folded into a single patch eventually) when developing a new
feature.

-- 

Freundliche Grüsse

Robin Baumgartner
Software Engineer

Leuchter Open Source Solutions AG
Winkelriedstrasse 45
CH-6003 Luzern
[email protected]
tryton.leuchterag.ch
T +41 41 226 50 93
F +41 41 226 50 51

Ein Unternehmen der Leuchter IT Solutions Gruppe

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to