Re: [eigen] Mercurial and named branches

[Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>]

Interesting. This seems to match the difference between notions of 'branches' in hg vs. git. I wonder if the people making named branches for each pull request are coming from a git background and are learning hg just for Eigen and expecting it to be like git. If this is the case, that could mean that hg is now a hindrance for new contributors to Eigen, and if that causes you to do additional manual work when merging pull requests, that could mean that hg is then also a hindrance to you.

Benoit

2015-12-04 3:56 GMT-05:00 Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>:

Hi,

This is a note to the developers and contributors: please avoid named branches as much as you can!

In our workflow, named branches are reserved to release branches, like 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, etc.

In any case, naming a branch for a single commit is ridiculous and counter productive.

So here are some rules:

1 - If possible, ask occasional contributor to not introduce a named branch for their patches.

2 - If a pull-request violates rule #1, then better do the merge manually to bypass the named branch.

3 - If you don't known how to do #2, then at the very least do not forget the --close-branch option when doing the merge from the command line, and if you do the merge through the bitbucket interface don't forget to check the "close branch" checkbox.

Thank you,

Gael