On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Saint Germain <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello ! > > :) > On 13 November 2013 11:18, Gary Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We can get the source from Subversion, from Github and Bitbucket and > >> patches can be sent through patch/diff, github pull request and > >> mercurial mq pull request. > >> But what is the recommended method ? > > > I use the MQ extension . It's an awesome approach to develop patches and get a clean history record in the main repository , it also serves to the purpose of applying a patch on top of different branches and experiment a little with low risk and the possibility of discarding unwanted/unsuccessful attempts . > > > > We might struggle to notice anything through github and bitbucket so the > > best bet is to go with a patch/diff at the moment. You should be able to > > either email patches to this list or attach them to a ticket on > > issues.apache.org/bloodhound. > > > > As I have explained in the other answer, I have tried this with: > https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/694 > > But it was a bit difficult to manage as soon as you are 2 > collaborating on the same patches. > > yes ... patches may be stacked on top of each other (qnew) , and eventually merged (qfold) > >> For instance, I saw that Olemis is using Bitbucket and mercurial-mq a > >> lot, so I decided to invest a little time to learn it to try his > >> patches. However I have some questions: > >> > >> 1) From where can I get the trunk ? If I qclone bloodhound-mq, I don't > >> see the most recent commit in Bloodhound. > >> I can use hgsubversion or hg-git to get the source from the official > >> repo, but I was expecting an up-to-date mirror on Bitbucket ? > > > > > > I am not aware of anything that can be considered an official mirror of > the > > repo on bitbucket so you would be relying on Olemis to keep his copy > updated > > with changes. The github mirror should automatically update. > I've update the patch queue repository few minutes ago . I'll automate this later today and inform you once this will be ready ... I apologize if this caused you any trouble ... ;) > > > > Sorry that doesn't really answer the question but if you want source > control > > for your patches, github might be a better bet for this reason. > > No problem, hg-git is working perfectly for me and I can directly pull > the changes from github. > It is just that I needed mercurial to be able to test Olemis patches > in is mercurial-mq. > you should be able to move forward now ... if they do not work with trunk then beware of the base changeset I checked out to build them (see patch name ;) . We could refresh them to make it work against /trunk later ;) > Using mercurial-mq seems to be quite nice from what I have seen to > manage/maintain patches. > yep ! awesome ! > I have no experience with Github pull request, but I understand that > the principle is more or less the same. ... yes and no . Git will provide you with changesets , but MQ will transform each patch into a «movable» virtual changeset . It may be (un)loaded at will . There should be a similar extension doing the same thing (or maybe better ;) for git though . So if diff/patches are not > working for some specific ticket, are we allowed to submit patches > through Github pull request ? > I do not know . In theory, using the combination of MQ + (hgsubversion | hgsvn) it's possible to experiment with patches and transform them into changesets (qfinish) that can be uploaded to the svn repository directly (... thus keeping a clean history ;) . [...] -- Regards, Olemis - @olemislc
