Coming from Github, we were used to abusing pull requests for branches
rather than forks. In this way one developer was responsible for
merging branches to master and other developers would issue a pull
request when their branch was ready for merge. A discussion could then
follow on the pull request and eventually the request fulfilled or
rejected.
In Bitbucket pull requests only seem to work for forks which is
overkill for us (each developer is part of the same team and all have
access to the repo).
What would you suggest as an alternative workflow?
To all those hoping for pull requests between branches... we know it's a limitation and the features is on our short list of items to complete post Gitbucket.
Cheers, Justen.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Martin Pengelly-Phillips <
> Coming from Github, we were used to abusing pull requests for branches > rather than forks. In this way one developer was responsible for > merging branches to master and other developers would issue a pull > request when their branch was ready for merge. A discussion could then > follow on the pull request and eventually the request fulfilled or > rejected.
> In Bitbucket pull requests only seem to work for forks which is > overkill for us (each developer is part of the same team and all have > access to the repo).
> What would you suggest as an alternative workflow?
> cheers,
> Martin
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "bitbucket-users" group. > To post to this group, send email to bitbucket-users@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > bitbucket-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/bitbucket-users?hl=en.
> To all those hoping for pull requests between branches... we know it's
> a limitation and the features is on our short list of items to complete post
> Gitbucket.
> Cheers, Justen.
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Martin Pengelly-Phillips <
> > Coming from Github, we were used to abusing pull requests for branches
> > rather than forks. In this way one developer was responsible for
> > merging branches to master and other developers would issue a pull
> > request when their branch was ready for merge. A discussion could then
> > follow on the pull request and eventually the request fulfilled or
> > rejected.
> > In Bitbucket pull requests only seem to work for forks which is
> > overkill for us (each developer is part of the same team and all have
> > access to the repo).
> > What would you suggest as an alternative workflow?
> > cheers,
> > Martin
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "bitbucket-users" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to bitbucket-users@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > bitbucket-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/bitbucket-users?hl=en.
> In Bitbucket pull requests only seem to work for forks which is > overkill for us (each developer is part of the same team and all have > access to the repo).
That is exactly how we have structured our workflow as well. I'd love to see this feature in bitbucket.
> > In Bitbucket pull requests only seem to work for forks which is
> > overkill for us (each developer is part of the same team and all have
> > access to the repo).
> That is exactly how we have structured our workflow as well. I'd love to see
> this feature in bitbucket.
> On Oct 5, 8:42 pm, Mark <markscl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In Bitbucket pull requests only seem to work for forks which is
> > > overkill for us (each developer is part of the same team and all have
> > > access to the repo).
> > That is exactly how we have structured our workflow as well. I'd love to see
> > this feature in bitbucket.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Martin Pengelly-Phillips
<d...@thesociable.net> wrote: > Coming from Github, we were used to abusing pull requests for branches > rather than forks. In this way one developer was responsible for > merging branches to master and other developers would issue a pull > request when their branch was ready for merge. A discussion could then > follow on the pull request and eventually the request fulfilled or > rejected.
How do you prevent developers not using 'master' branch? It is somewhat understood or some hooks?
I presume you could set it up to actively prevent them (some hook /
auth privileges), but at present it is just an agreement.
So each project has an owner and other developers agree not to push to
master.
Note that we are a company based team, so can support these practices
through management rather than technology.
Martin
On Oct 10, 3:35 pm, Dilip M <dilip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Martin Pengelly-Phillips
> <d...@thesociable.net> wrote:
> > Coming from Github, we were used to abusing pull requests for branches
> > rather than forks. In this way one developer was responsible for
> > merging branches to master and other developers would issue a pull
> > request when their branch was ready for merge. A discussion could then
> > follow on the pull request and eventually the request fulfilled or
> > rejected.
> How do you prevent developers not using 'master' branch? It is
> somewhat understood or some hooks?
