enquiry about the geometry package

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

enquiry about the geometry package

AMR_KELEG
Dear all, 

I am willing to contribute to the geometry package as a part of the GSOC .
I have created a bitbucket repo ( https://bitbucket.org/amr_keleg/octave-geometry ) to share my code there for reviews.
The repo has three branches :
upstream - default - stable . 
Should i add my future scripts to the default branch?

Regards,
Amr 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: enquiry about the geometry package

John Swensen-3

On May 2, 2016, at 7:44 AM, amr mohamed <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear all, 

I am willing to contribute to the geometry package as a part of the GSOC .
I have created a bitbucket repo ( https://bitbucket.org/amr_keleg/octave-geometry ) to share my code there for reviews.
The repo has three branches :
upstream - default - stable . 
Should i add my future scripts to the default branch?

Regards,
Amr 

I think the preferred method is for you to start a “feature branch” where you put a well-defined portion of your work in a branch and then make a “pull-request” to the maintainer (see http://wiki.octave.org/Mercurial for the different ways of submitting changes). 

I personally like the feature-branch and pull-request method of working the best. It keeps things well defined, isolated, and it is easy to just give a commit id from your repository to the maintainer to pull the changes into the octave-forge default branch.

John S.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: enquiry about the geometry package

Juan Pablo Carbajal-2
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:12 PM, John Swensen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On May 2, 2016, at 7:44 AM, amr mohamed <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am willing to contribute to the geometry package as a part of the GSOC .
> I have created a bitbucket repo (
> https://bitbucket.org/amr_keleg/octave-geometry ) to share my code there for
> reviews.
> The repo has three branches :
> upstream - default - stable .
> Should i add my future scripts to the default branch?
>
> Regards,
> Amr
>
>
> I think the preferred method is for you to start a “feature branch” where
> you put a well-defined portion of your work in a branch and then make a
> “pull-request” to the maintainer (see http://wiki.octave.org/Mercurial for
> the different ways of submitting changes).
>
> I personally like the feature-branch and pull-request method of working the
> best. It keeps things well defined, isolated, and it is easy to just give a
> commit id from your repository to the maintainer to pull the changes into
> the octave-forge default branch.
>
> John S.
>
I a not sure you can cross pull request between bitbucket and octave forge.
I suggest you just develop in your code and then build patches
(changeset) and commit them to the savanah tracker
http://wiki.octave.org/Mercurial#Creating_changesets_files_with_hg

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: enquiry about the geometry package

AMR_KELEG
> Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 18:28:52 +0200

> Subject: Re: enquiry about the geometry package
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> CC: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:12 PM, John Swensen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On May 2, 2016, at 7:44 AM, amr mohamed <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I am willing to contribute to the geometry package as a part of the GSOC .
> > I have created a bitbucket repo (
> > https://bitbucket.org/amr_keleg/octave-geometry ) to share my code there for
> > reviews.
> > The repo has three branches :
> > upstream - default - stable .
> > Should i add my future scripts to the default branch?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Amr
> >
> >
> > I think the preferred method is for you to start a “feature branch” where
> > you put a well-defined portion of your work in a branch and then make a
> > “pull-request” to the maintainer (see http://wiki.octave.org/Mercurial for
> > the different ways of submitting changes).
> >
> > I personally like the feature-branch and pull-request method of working the
> > best. It keeps things well defined, isolated, and it is easy to just give a
> > commit id from your repository to the maintainer to pull the changes into
> > the octave-forge default branch.
> >
> > John S.
> >
> I a not sure you can cross pull request between bitbucket and octave forge.
> I suggest you just develop in your code and then build patches
> (changeset) and commit them to the savanah tracker
> http://wiki.octave.org/Mercurial#Creating_changesets_files_with_hg

Ok then i will create a new feature branch on my bitbucket repo and push my code there as it permits both creating a pull-request (if possible) and creating patches.
I think this is the best choice to make now and see how things will go in the future.
 
Thanks .

Amr
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: enquiry about the geometry package

Mike Miller-4
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 20:33:32 +0300, Amr Mohamed wrote:
> Ok then i will create a new feature branch on my bitbucket repo and
> push my code there as it permits both creating a pull-request (if
> possible) and creating patches.

Just a small note, branches in mercurial are *not* equivalent to git
"feature branches". Git branches are transient, when you merge the
branch you can safely delete it and it's as if it never existed. A
branch in mercurial is a permanent part of the history, any changes made
on a branch will forever be recorded as being made on the "stable"
branch or whatever you choose to call it.

The mercurial equivalent to git branches is bookmarks, take a look at

  https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/Bookmarks

> I think this is the best choice to make now and see how things will go
> in the future.

I agree (possibly substituting a bookmark for a branch). And note that a
"pull request" can be as simple as an email saying "please pull changes
from this revision", it does *not* have to be a proprietary solution
that is locked into a platform like bitbucket or github.

--
mike