From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bzr repository ready? Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:11:35 +0100 Message-ID: <87my2dhlko.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <87zl6vskq0.fsf@red-bean.com> <874op07kb0.fsf@red-bean.com> <87639fr3w7.fsf@red-bean.com> <87vdhfpil2.fsf@red-bean.com> <87einvxy9c.fsf@red-bean.com> <20091118230952.GB908@muc.de> <87my2jw05z.fsf@red-bean.com> <83skc9pbf7.fsf@gnu.org> <87iqd5vw5n.fsf@red-bean.com> <87vdh29lfo.fsf@red-bean.com> <83k4xhoo0n.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1258953254 29231 80.91.229.12 (23 Nov 2009 05:14:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:14:14 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 23 06:14:07 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NCRFW-0001Tu-TX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:14:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49410 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NCRFV-0006IJ-VY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:14:06 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NCRFR-0006I3-0e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:14:01 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NCRFL-0006HN-H0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:13:59 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41282 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NCRFL-0006HF-Bp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:13:55 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:33655) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NCRFK-0004gE-It for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:13:55 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NCRFI-0001P8-4Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:13:52 +0100 Original-Received: from 83.red-83-40-117.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([83.40.117.83]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:13:52 +0100 Original-Received: from ofv by 83.red-83-40-117.dynamicip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:13:52 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 40 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.red-83-40-117.dynamicip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:U8OWVZU5VcRn0uMztkb2xpeMURQ= X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:117559 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Right now, the only question that's come up that I think belongs in that >> document is "What should be the standard workflow for Emacs developers >> in Bazaar?" That's a question we already had a draft answer for, and >> Stephen Turnbull has since improved it (I'm about to review it). > > Except that alternative workflows were mentioned here since then, and > it is no longer clear to me that the one described on the Wiki is the > best one. Perhaps we should add a few more there. There is no "best-one" workflow. It depends on what kind of work you do, what's your environment (i.e. connected/disconnected) and even on your personal preferences. People like Richard that is off-line most of the time will appreciate the possibility of committing lots of changes to his personal repo and send them all to the GNU repo in one batch when he gets net access. This has the inconvenience that you allow a lot of time for the branches to diverge and the merge you are required to do before pushing your local commits to the GNU repo can give a bit of work, on terms of code review. Other people that work at home doing occassional small code cleanups and fixing typos will be happy working with bound branches (aka heavyweight checkouts) which sends their commits to the GNU repo on the spot. Some people will like to organize their work on feature branches. Other less-strict personalities will do all their work on the same branch. It is not a matter of finding the best workflow, but beginning with one that is better than CVS and simple enough to minimize the effort, setting a basis for introducing variations. On this regard, the workflow that Jason described elsewhere based on bound branches is the one we should recommend, IMHO. Once you master that, using unbound branches is an evolutive step: you need to learn more, but what you already know still applies. -- Óscar