[oe] A question of workflow

[Matthew Palmer]

On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 03:08:34PM -0800, Erik Hovland wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 11:07:57PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 07:19:29PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > 
> > >> It does mean you shouldn't be committing changes locally via monotone.
> > >> If you do this you will have to pull and then merge every time. That
> > >> isn't a problem in itself but if you do get direct commit access, we
> > >> will not be happy adding hundreds of extra merges to the main
> > >> repository.
> > > 
> > > WTF?  Why are you using a distributed revision control system, if I'm not
> > > supposed to be committing locally?  If everything I do is supposed to be
> > > bundled up into a patch and sent to the bugzilla, how am I meant to maintain
> > > my own tree of fixes while I wait for them all to be applied to dev?  Quilt? 
> > > That might make sense if I'm stuck interacting with SVN, but with a DRCS in
> > > the mix I expect *it* to be able to take on that role.
> > 
> > Do what virtually every DSCM does to support that: make a branch
> 
> Strange. Git nor mercucial require you to branch.

Add darcs and bzr to the "no need to explicitly branch" list.  But then
again, it's not a fundamental failing of the tool if you need to say "Please
branch now", especially when, like monotone, you've got the ability to have
this "micro-branch" thing with the multiple "heads".

- Matt

-- 
"Ah, the beauty of OSS. Hundreds of volunteers worldwide volunteering their
time inventing and implementing new, exciting ways for software to suck."
		-- Toni Lassila, in the Monastery