[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Arx-users] Real-world ArX usage

From: Kevin Smith
Subject: Re: [Arx-users] Real-world ArX usage
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 08:48:27 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050404)

Amine Chadly wrote:
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 08:41 -0400, Kevin Smith wrote:

Each developer would have their own local working archive, which would
be a branch off of the master. We would frequently (~hourly?) do a diff
between the master and our working archive. For each new patch, we would
review the incoming code, and then pull it into our local branch.

Question: What is the best scenario here : that every developer archive
be a mirror of the central ArX archive, or that each forks his own
branch ?

My understanding is that you don't want multiple developers modifying mirrors of the same archive at the same time. Each one should be working on their own branch, to keep the merges clean. In fact, each is likely to have multiple branches at some point, if they are working on unrelated tasks or product versions simultaneously. But normally they would each be working on a single branch of the master.

As we complete each small coding task, we would run any relevant tests,
review our patch, and commit it to our local archive. As we complete
each related small group of tasks, we would run our full test suite and
then mirror our local archive to a remote copy on the server, via ssh.

What about having a repository on each developer machine that will
receive only versions that ought to be published in the main ArX
repository ? Just to avoid having to give any access to it to any

In our case, developers working remotely with dynamic IP addresses don't really have a way to create an archive that could be read/pulled by the master server. If we were on a LAN or VPN, your suggestion would be the way I would prefer to do things.

Second each developer would create a local mirror of that archive on his
machine. Shall we keep ArX looking by default at the remote archive (the
main ArX server), so each integrated change ends up in our local work
directory or shall we make the local archive as default, and get the
global change by mail from the central repository ?

I think Walter answered this, but I would expect each developer to branch the master, and use "merge" to pull changes from the master. I personally don't like email as a transport mechanism, although there probably is a way to get it to work.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]