Merge on push?

[Adrian Buehlmann]

On 07.06.2008 21:39, Roman Kennke wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> One of the most frequent complaints about Mercurial (probably even _the_
> most frequent complaint) is that it is so difficult to push stuff to
> remote repositories. While Mercurial is a distributed RCS, I think that
> the majority of projects still have a central repository that serves as
> a the basis for releases etc. At my workplace, we tend to do work using
> a mixed approach: we have one central repository, but developers pull
> stuff from each other anyway, i.e. in order to exchange patches that
> can't go into the master at this point, but need testing in a different
> context, etc.

[deleted some lines]

Did you try Bazaar's centralized workflow?

http://bazaar-vcs.org/Workflows#head-22b1dac636e54e501e9b5a0a235f21bb686b80ac

Quote:
'''
Subversion and CVS are good choices for implementing this workflow because
they make it easy. Unlike the vast majority of distributed VCS tools, Bazaar
makes it easy as well by directly supporting it. In addition, Bazaar provides
some important advantages over CVS and Subversion:

    * much better branching and merging
    * better renaming support.
'''

I did not test that workflow of Bazaar, but would be interested in hearing
what your experiences/opinion with/on Bazaar would be/are.

I gave up investigating bzr mainly due to slow bzr check (last time I tried
a couple of months ago), but I am currently tempted to have a second, closer
look.

My main reasons why I was interested in Mercurial were:

* excellent merging
* enables offline work / built-in fast replication
* reasonable speed
* supports Windows to a reasonable degree