Re: [eigen] Named branches

[Ryan Pavlik <rpavlik@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

For what it's worth, Git and Hg are pretty isomorphic: as I prefer working in Git, I've actually set up an unofficial mirror of Eigen using hg-git that automatically updates fairly frequently (can't remember when off the top of my head) - anyone else is welcome to use it as well. https://github.com/vancegroup-mirrors/eigen  No way with this mirror to automatically submit things upstream, but no problem with forking, making branches, and submitting patches with git format-patch.

Ryan

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

What you guys really want is git ;-)

git's branches are just like hg's heads, but with persistent names. Once they've been merged, they can be disposed of. That's really exactly what you want for temporary projects.

Git is significantly more difficult to learn that Hg, but at this point, it seems that the rest of the world has moved to git anyway (even here at Mozilla, a bastion of Hg, half of my colleagues prefer working with a semi-official git mirror synced daily...) so in practice, Hg may now be a more of a barrier to entry, than Git.

Benoit

2013/5/9 Martin Felis <martin.felis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Just a note: named branches stay in the history forever. A alternative are bookmarks which are in most cases more convenient and can be removed when no more needed.

Cheers,
Martin

On 05/07/2013 02:43 PM, Hauke Heibel wrote:

It's ok. After thinking about it again, I agree that it would be a bit
too confusing. It's easy enough to create a fork.

Regards,
Hauke


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Gael Guennebaud

<gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gael.guennebaud@gmail.com>> wrote:

    I'm also temped to favor forks to keep the main repository as simple
    as possible.

    gael

    On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Christoph Hertzberg
    <chtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    <mailto:chtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx-bremen.de>> wrote:

     > On 07.05.2013 11 <tel:07.05.2013%2011>:07, Hauke Heibel wrote:
     >>
     >> does anybody over here have objections against using named
    branches for
     >> providing patches and new features (bitbucket supports named
    branches +
     >> pull requests).
     >
     >
     > Will this still give unauthorized users the possibility to create
    branches?
     > (ok, obviously forks would not be forbidden then, I guess)
     > Furthermore, I prefer very experimental features (which are
    abandoned quite
     > often) not to pollute the commit history of the main repository.
     >
     > That said, I don't have strong objections, but I prefer the way
    it is at the
     > moment.
     >
     > Christoph
     >
     > --
     > ----------------------------------------------
     > Dipl.-Inf., Dipl.-Math. Christoph Hertzberg
     > Cartesium 0.049
     > Universität Bremen
     > Enrique-Schmidt-Straße 5
     > 28359 Bremen
     >

     > Tel: +49 (421) 218-64252 <tel:%2B49%20%28421%29%20218-64252>
     > ----------------------------------------------
     >
     >

--
mail  : martin.felis@xxxxxxx-heidelberg.de
phone : +49 6221 544983
office: IWR | Speyerer Str. 6 | Room 319 | 69115 Heidelberg | Germany

--
Ryan Pavlik
HCI Graduate Student
Virtual Reality Applications Center
Iowa State University

rpavlik@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://academic.cleardefinition.com