alexandre at peadrop.com
Tue Apr 7 08:17:51 CEST 2009
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
> Alexandre Vassalotti writes:
> > 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.
> That was the original idea of PEP 374, that was a presumption under
> which I wrote my part of it, I think we should stick with it. As
> people develop personal workflows, they can suggest them, and/or
> changes in the public workflow needed to support them. But there
> should be a working sample implementation before thinking about
> changes to the workflow.
Aahz convinced me earlier that changing the current workflow would be
stupid. So, I now think the best thing to do is to provide a CVS-style
environment similar to what we have currently, and let the workflow
evolve naturally as developers gain more confidence with Mercurial.
> > 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.
> Can you give examples of projects using Mercurial that do that?
Mercurial itself is developed using that style, I believe.
More information about the Python-Dev