On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:22:21PM -0700, Scott Scriven wrote:
* Tim Nieradzik <tim.nieradzik@gmx.de> wrote:
For Dillo, experimental per-feature repositories would be very useful ...
Yes, I agree. I make feature branches all the time, and I think they're great. But that's not really what I was getting at. Basically, there are a few different ways to merge...
- patch: send the output of 'hg diff' to the list, apply it via 'patch', and commit one revision
- bundle: send the output of 'hg bundle' to the list, apply it via 'hg unbundle', and commit with full history
- repository: send an URL to the list, apply via 'hg pull' and 'hg merge', and commit with full history
I've seen patch and repository methods used here, but haven't really seen any bundles. So, I'm just wondering if that sort of thing is acceptable. I think it's probably preferable to plain patches, and easier than hosting repositories.
We have been using bundles a few times. But this may have been off list. I would suggest to use plain patches for simple short changes, as they are easy to review and immediately viewable in the mail archives. For longer living feature branches a separate repository can be helpful. Check out http://freehg.org it's really simple to setup a repo there. Bundles can be used in some cases, but I wouldn't recommend them for general use on the mailling list. BTW: It seems mercurial itself also suggests patches according to: http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/ContributingChanges Cheers, Johannes