Daniel Carosone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 11:37:52PM +0000, Bruce Stephens wrote:
[...] >> So I'm imagining how we might work using some other system. Our >> way of working tends to involve using CVS working copies as >> distributed branches, and we email patches for review as, well, >> patches. And I'm not convinced that reviewing works that >> effectively---I suspect it would be better to commit first and >> review afterwards, where it's easy to see things in context, and >> convenient to make minor changes. > > Yes, exactly. Each developer reviews other's patches by doing diffs > between the mainline head and that peer's branch head, and/or when > proagating from the mainline to their own branch. > > You still have some question about what to do with abandoned work, > but it's localised to each developer's own branch for their own > work, and won't interfere with others. Yes, I'd thought of that, too. However, surely that means that each developer branch would end up with multiple heads, so much the same problem would occur? The only thing that I think really would work would be to use a fresh branch when necessary, but I don't like that. _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
