Hello,
I'm trying to migrate a Trac workflow to Fossil. Here's what it looks like: For each feature: 1. create ticket 2. create branch 3. implement 4. submit branch for review 5. review: if not good, back to 3 6. merge branch to trunk (trunk gets handed off to continuous integration/deployment system) It feels kind of unwieldy. I'm trying to figure out if that's because I'm not used to Fossil, or because I'm trying to make a cat bark. Is Fossil not built to work this way? It could be a misunderstanding, but I saw something about Fossil's autosync feature being all about preventing lots of "needless" branching. What is workflow supposed to look like instead? Is there a decent way of filtering tickets on the ones which are up for review and which ones aren't? In trac, I did this with tags; but fossil doesn't appear to have tags for tickets. Also what do you people use for code review? I can imagine using fossil diff for this, I guess. Ideas welcome. Thanks in advance, Laurens _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
