About an IRC discussion on using pull requests for hg development

[Patrick Mézard]

Le 07/05/12 22:51, Matt Mackall a écrit :
> On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 18:33 +0200, Patrick Mézard wrote:
>> TL;DR:
>> - Make history editing easier and safer (include histedit?)
>> - Vague thoughts about supporting bitbucket-like pull requests while preserving an email-based review workflow.
> 
> Every time this comes up, I say "but I do accept pull requests!"
> 
> But I only want pull requests from people who have a track record of
> getting a submission right the first time and have internalized
> important rules like "don't mix unrelated changes". Otherwise I'll start
> reading your incoming csets, discover problems, then ask you to resend
> so I can comment on the problems. Which means my aborted first pass was
> wasted effort.
> 
> I also regularly pull from the crew and i18n trees. The former is full
> of trusted committers, the latter is effectively unreviewable.
> 
> And as it happens, most of the people I'd accept a pull request from
> either have crew access or are content to patchbomb (or both!).

FWIW, I am doing the devil advocate here. I do not really care about pull requests and patchbomb is fine for me, but it is interesting to think about alternatives, and the second part was a simple attempt at making a pull based workflow fit with the mailing list approach.

Not pushing to crew anymore is my way of experiencing our own workflow. At this point, my main frustration is when things are "queued" but not "pushed" (I have at least two "acked" patchbombs in limbo at this time).
--
Patrick Mézard