On Mon, 02 May 2011 19:12:12 +1200, Niels Sascha Reedijk <niels.reedijk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,Let me give an informal report, as we never came to making an official one.Our task description was to see how to improve the workflow (which I would like to point out as it is different from choosing another RCS). What did we do: * We discussed various models of patch flow, like the gatekeepers model and completely decentralized models. To see whether there were any advantages to go beyond the centralized 1 on 1 relation that subversion gives.* We compared 3 VCS, of which Git and Hg are contenders (see my other message).* We discussed various parts of our system infrastructure that surround our migration. In the other e-mail I think Oliver and I gave away our discussion on Git vs. Hg. So that's going to be there. In the rest of the issue, I will outline the 'other' issues that we encountered.
Hi Niels and Oliver,what is you opinion about gui integration? from the available tools I have the, maybe wrong, impression that hg is better to wrap it into a gui.
I think if hg-git is really properly working there is no reason to not use git, but I really don't care.
For the workflow, till most of the devs are familiar with the new tool I think we should emulate the current workflow. Means every dev is working in the default branch and has to merge into the server default branch before push (maybe not correct for git but I hope you get my point...) We have this police in our student hg repository and it works nice (also because tortoisehg does not let you create new remote head on default ;) )