[oe] A question of workflow

[Matthew Palmer]

On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 10:36:44AM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Erik Hovland schreef:
> > 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.
> 
> Actually git branches the moment when you pull, it just hides that.

That's what bzr and darcs do, too.  You can't really have a DRCS without
either implicit or explicit branching on retrieval.  In reality, monotone is
branching implicitly just like git, bzr, and darcs.  It's just that monotone
has two levels of branching: "heads", which are nothing more than unnamed
microbranches, and the more coarse-grained named branch.

- Matt