Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Killing heads, again

[Daniel Carosone]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 11:37:52PM +0000, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> It's kind of how we do things at work: we use a CVS repository
> together with scripts which commit multiple files more or less at
> once, but before committing, we send out proposed changes to one or
> two people for review.  
> 
> And now and again, we decide not to commit a change at all, or not to
> commit it now (because it'll interfere with some imminent release or
> something).  This doesn't happen all that often, but we certainly do
> abandon changes now and again.

A slightly different practice might fit better, if you want to work
this way:

Each developer could develop on their own personal branch, all the
time.  What you currently do around CVS commits, you would instead do
around propagates to the mainline branch.

> 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.

pgpeABrNSF213.pgp
Description: PGP signature