Chameleon > DevTalk
moving to GIT?
Kabyl:
--- Quote from: Mozodojo on September 28, 2010, 09:58:04 AM ---You made changes into smbios, more clear code etc. I like to see it in trunc. I want to add some improvements. So on with valv, azimutz brunches. How could it be possible? If we do have another "develop" branch and we do cimmit new feateres on it to testing and feature integration into main trunc, it would be great. If so any dev could add fixes to other dev's work etc. For now it so unclear - I'll add changes into your brunch? But, it's your private branch...
Question: who will add all these useful changes into trunc? It could become buggy and unstable. Need testing. We have only one main brunch. We have so many commiting devs (into their brunches). Completely unclear how to work in this situation...
I want we're all work together.
--- End quote ---
I understand the issue, and you suggested we should move to git, valv recommends bzr... I'm with whichever works best.
Or, are suggesting that we should have only one repo (trunk) and we should all just commit to it?
Mozodojo:
Iam suggesting to create (if it's possible) a folder named [dev] maybe where developers would have possibility to create subfolders for new good features thats will be integrated into trunc next. So we're all could work on the specific feature together. After integration into trunc, subfolder could be deleted. Is it possible with SVN? Is it good idea?
For now developer's branches is like a different linux distros. Some times good new features is going into trunc, some times not. With "featured" branches we're all could decide if the feature is good and going into trunc. if not, we could move this specific branch into [frozen] folder or something like this. Or we could decide from the begining what the new features we want to develop and add into trunc next. So we creating special branches for these features and working on it.
Kabyl:
Most of the time, you can't add "new" features without touching the main code, this would be different with modules, though.
Branches are there for a reason, one would have more control over "his" branch, and he could focus on what he's trying to do, more people working on the same branch is distracting for them and they would need to keep up with each other's changes.
So the issue, as I see it, is just in merging from a branch to another, and from several branches to trunk.
Mozodojo:
Yes, you're right, manual merging is a problem. How do you do this? Especialy if you need to merge trunc and couple of private branches and not all of their changes :)
Kabyl:
I thought that's why you're suggesting "moving the GIT"?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version