dirkjan at ochtman.nl
Mon Apr 6 08:21:05 CEST 2009
Alexandre Vassalotti <alexandre <at> peadrop.com> writes:
> With Mercurial, we will need to add support for server-side clone
> ourselves. There's few ways to provide this feature. We give Unix user
> accounts to all core developers and let developers manages their
> private branches directly on the server. You made clear that this is
> not wanted. So an alternative approach is to add a interface
> accessible via SSH. As I previously mentioned, this is the approach
> used by Mozilla.
The easier solution here is to just allow normal local-to-remote clones. hg
supports commands like hg clone . ssh://firstname.lastname@example.org/my-branch without the
need for any extra scripts or setup. I think that would be a good start.
> This makes me remember that we will have to decide how we will
> reorganize our workflow. For this, we can either be conservative and
> keep the current CVS-style development workflow—i.e., a few main
> repositories where all developers can commit to. Or we could drink the
> kool-aid and go with a kernel-style development workflow—i.e., each
> developer maintains his own branch and pull changes from each others.
The differences between these workflows aren't all that big, i.e. it's not like
there's a big schisma between them. But I suspect that, in a setup where
buildbots are important, a very much multi-repo setup probably isn't a good idea
(this is also why Mozilla doesn't use that many repos; their continuous
integration infra is /very/ important to them).
More information about the Python-Dev