[darcs-users] 'submitted' branch

[Nathan Gray]

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:32:30AM +0100, Eric Kow wrote:
> Submitted vs reviewed
> ---------------------
> OK so the rest of this is just implementation detail once we all get
> some consensus about having a two branch reviewed/submitted system
> in principle.
> 
> If we're going to bat these sorts of ideas back and forth, perhaps for
> clarity we talk about these two branches as 'submitted' and 'reviewed'
> and only talk about HEAD as a pointer.  The reason I bring this up is
> because this morning, it occurred to me that if people just do what
> comes naturally,
> 
>   darcs get --lazy http://darcs.net
>   # hack-hack-hack
>   darcs send
> 
> they would be typically sending against the reviewed branch and not
> the submitted one.
> 
> Is it acceptable to have lots of patches sent against reviewed and some
> patches sent against submitted?  Or do we try to physically arrange
> things so that the default action is to send to submitted?

The way we have things set up with our darcs repositories is:

  production - maintains the state of what is currently released/live
  development - contains all patches from production and any
    unreleased patches that seem stable
  sandbox - each developer has their own sandbox which has all
    patches from production and any patches they are working on

Our sandbox repositories pull from production and push to
development.  This just makes sense.  Having a mechanism to set
those defaults would be nice.  Setting up a patch flow between
distributed repos seems to make more sense than being tied to a
single repo.

-kolibrie

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20100914/27e5abd6/attachment.pgp>