Slime project considering Mercurial

Giorgos Keramidas keramida at ceid.upatras.gr
Fri Mar 7 12:15:42 CST 2008


On 2008-03-07 13:08, Paul Franz <theandromedan at gmail.com> wrote:
>Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>>> So the local India developers would pull from the local gate
>>> repository but push to the one in the US, correct?
>>
>> Yes, that's one way to do it.
>>
>> It may be worth considering a `pull based' model though.  Pulls scale
>> much better than several dozens of developers trying to push at the same
>> time.
>>
>> A pull based model can work with two `gates' at each remote site.  The
>> developers of site $FOO use gates foo-incoming and foo-outgoing.  A team
>> leader, local at site $FOO, is assigned the task of pulling from local
>> people into foo-outgoing, and then push once at the central gate in a
>> remote site.
>>
>> This means that a `gatekeeper' is needed at each site.  The requirement
>> for a gatekeeper may or may not be helpful for the way you plan working.
>> It's just one of the ways you can use Mercurial to keep changes flowing
>> in a controlled manner to `upstream' gates.
>
> I assume then that the gatekeeper would be assigned integration/merge
> conflict resolution duty, correct?

Not necessarily.  One way to keep integrating developer workspaces is to
let the gatekeeper do it.  Another one is to let the gatekeeper use
`integration workspaces' and pull the gate into them.

Then the gatekeeper can pull from any random number of developers into
the integration workspace and simply refuse to merge changes which
create multiple `heads', delegating the patch rebase/merge/integrate
operation back to the developer who made the changes.



More information about the Mercurial mailing list