Merged Branches

[Peter Rust]

Jonathan,

 

I wanted my JS fix to be in both the “toys” and “default” branches… since the “toys” branch hadn’t touched any of the same files as the “default” branch (except some trivial modifications to .hgignore), I went ahead and merged the branches. Hope that was the right thing to do.

 

-- peter

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JavaScript for Python programmers" group.
To post to this group, send an email to js...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to js4py+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/js4py?hl=en-GB.

[Jonathan Fine]

Peter

My view was that 'toys' was a separate development, and so should be done in its own branch.

Your view, I think, was that there were no conflicts, so it should be done in the main branch.

I'm happy to work either way (although my preference is for branching when one make experiments).  These issue will become more serious when we make a release and have users.

--
Jonathan

[Peter Rust]

I’m ok w/ working either way, but would prefer the opposite, mainly because I’m lazy – I’d rather not have to remember to pull the changes/fixes in shared code from the main branch into the sub-branches in order to keep them up-to-date and having to type “hg branch” to ensure I’m on the right one…

 

Actually, if we have related experimental projects that aren’t directly touching the main code, my preference is to keep them in separate repositories altogether  (though perhaps with a common naming convention and links on the websites) and only pulling them in if/when there are points of contact between the two bodies of code.

 

-- peter

[Ondrej Certik]

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Peter Rust <pe...@cornerstonenw.com> wrote:
> I’m ok w/ working either way, but would prefer the opposite, mainly because
> I’m lazy – I’d rather not have to remember to pull the changes/fixes in
> shared code from the main branch into the sub-branches in order to keep them
> up-to-date and having to type “hg branch” to ensure I’m on the right one…
>
>
>
> Actually, if we have related experimental projects that aren’t directly
> touching the main code, my preference is to keep them in separate
> repositories altogether  (though perhaps with a common naming convention and
> links on the websites) and only pulling them in if/when there are points of
> contact between the two bodies of code.

With git, I use branches all the time. :)

Ondrej

[Peter Rust]

> With git, I use branches all the time. :)

Yes, git is geared towards branches, while mercurial is geared more towards
branching-through-cloning. I'm ok with whatever you guys want to do,
especially if you (Jonathan) want to maintain the "toys" branch and pull in
changes... at the time I was lazy and preferred to just merge and not worry
about maintaining separate branches.

-- peter

-----Original Message-----
From: js...@googlegroups.com [mailto:js...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
Ondrej Certik
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 4:29 PM
To: js...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Merged Branches

[Jonathan Fine]

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Peter Rust <pe...@cornerstonenw.com> wrote:

> With git, I use branches all the time. :)

Yes, git is geared towards branches, while mercurial is geared more towards
branching-through-cloning. I'm ok with whatever you guys want to do,
especially if you (Jonathan) want to maintain the "toys" branch and pull in
changes... at the time I was lazy and preferred to just merge and not worry
about maintaining separate branches.

I think it very important, when we make the first release, that the main branch pass all tests, and that untested changes are not added to it.

I'd also like to be able to follow the main branch revision by revision, seeing what's going on.  That's why I wanted to put the 'toys' experiment to one side until it was ready for main.

best regards


Jonathan

[Ondrej Certik]

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Jonathan Fine
<jonatha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Peter Rust <pe...@cornerstonenw.com> wrote:
>>
>> > With git, I use branches all the time. :)
>> Yes, git is geared towards branches, while mercurial is geared more
>> towards
>> branching-through-cloning. I'm ok with whatever you guys want to do,
>> especially if you (Jonathan) want to maintain the "toys" branch and pull
>> in
>> changes... at the time I was lazy and preferred to just merge and not
>> worry
>> about maintaining separate branches.
>
> I think it very important, when we make the first release, that the main
> branch pass all tests, and that untested changes are not added to it.

I totally agree. Feel free not to satisfy the two tests that I pushed
in ---- even though it'd be super cool if you did.

>
> I'd also like to be able to follow the main branch revision by revision,
> seeing what's going on.  That's why I wanted to put the 'toys' experiment to
> one side until it was ready for main.

I am now a bit busy with other things, but eventually I'll get back to
it and try to fix the rest of the problems in our py2js too, so that
all tests pass.

Ondrej

[Peter Rust]

Ok, let's keep toys in a separate branch.

-- peter

-----Original Message-----
From: js...@googlegroups.com [mailto:js...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
Ondrej Certik
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 9:31 AM
To: js...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Merged Branches