On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 00:37, Adrian Buehlmann <adr...@cadifra.com> wrote: > On 11.09.2009 16:56, Steve Borho wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:48 AM, Adrian Buehlmann <adr...@cadifra.com> wrote: >>> On 11.09.2009 10:25, Sune Foldager wrote: >>>> On Friday, 11 September, 2009, at 10:03AM, "Adrian Buehlmann" >>>> <adr...@cadifra.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11.09.2009 09:30, Sune Foldager wrote: >>>>>> I tried to post this yesterday but it seemed not to work. Maybe this >>>>>> time. >>>>>> Sorry for the duplicate if it actually worked anyway :-p. >>>>> IIRC, I pulled this yesterday already: >>>>> http://bitbucket.org/tortoisehg/stable/changeset/2fd6e63dbd17/ >>>> Ah ok, cool. For some reason the mail didn't get back to me, so I assume >>>> it was lost :-p >>> Steve decided to stop sending push notification emails some time ago. >>> >>> Just check http://bitbucket.org/tortoisehg/stable/overview/ >>> >>> There are also feeds available: RSS and Atom -- I never used them myself, >>> I just manually check the website if I want to know if Steve has pushed >>> my patches (or do 'hg inco'). If he's online, he's usually very quick at >>> pushing. >>> >>> As a side note: I don't have push access, although I recently experimented >>> with >>> pushing some patches I was interested in to my bb fork repo during Steve's >>> offline >>> phase. Steve then reviewed and pull them from my bb repo in a batch when he >>> was back >>> online. >> >> I pretty much push everything Adrian and Yuki post to the -dev list. >> If either of you wants write access to the main repo, I would be ok >> with it. The only downside is the revision graph would probably >> become more cluttered. > > Hmm. > > It would be easy for me to take care not to inflict merges willy nilly. > The downside is, if more people push to the official repo, we don't > know who pushed what. > > Having a single pull model has its merits. Also, I don't do builds > anyway. So its probably best if the person who makes builds does the final > pulls into the "golden" repo.
I agree. I prefer the simple repository graph on official repo. And even If I could push changesets to the official repo directly, I will send a patch to dev-ML maybe :) However, to grant the write permission to another member as *backup* is good idea. In fact, I'm a backup of i18n maintainer, Peer. > Having to wait until you push a patch of Yuki has been a bit > of a nuisance for me recently, as I was interested in having/trying Yuki's > things, knowing that you most likely will push his patches anyway, as > soon as you get online. > > So, my options were to apply Yukis patches locally and then strip them > again as soon as you have pushed them. But hacking on top of that felt a bit > stupid at times. > > For what's worth, I failed to convince Yuki to push into the same repo as I > do. Separation can have its merits too :) > > But a crew repo could be nice indeed. But then we see merges between crew > and main repo (like mercurial). Adrian, I did rethink this topic. The reason why I felt a bit odd of your proposal is it's your personal repository (sorry, but it's really...). So If we have official crew repo that allows playing & hacking TortoiseHg for experimental features & changes (and dirty rev graph by merging), I will push my unstable codes to there :) -- Yuki KODAMA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Tortoisehg-develop mailing list Tortoisehg-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-develop
