CODEWITHSUNDEEP
mercurialworkflowdvcs
bentsai
bentsai

Reputation: 3133

How do we manage granular changesets in the central/shared repository?

I've used Mercurial for years locally, but now we are doing a pilot of switching over from Subversion at my company.

We're embracing the fact that developers will now be making more granular changesets--some of which may not even build. When developers push their changes to the central repository, all of these changesets will show up in the history - this is natural and expected.

My question is: how do we deal with the fact that, because changesets are more granular, this makes it possible for developers to update to a revision that doesn't build? We are coming from a world where you can checkout anywhere in the repository and reasonably expect to be able to make a release from that point. With DVCS's, how do you tell where a "safe" revision is?

This issue is somewhat addressed in this question, but I'm more interested in finding out how to deal with this using branch repos (and not named branches).

I understand there are ways to modify history (e.g. the collapse extension) so that the changes get collapsed in the history of the repository, but we'd like to preserve the history.

Looking at the mercurial and mozilla trees, I don't see a clear way to tell where safe revisions are to sync. Is this not as important as we think it is?

Upvotes: 3

Views: 134

Answers (4)

Karl Bielefeldt
Karl Bielefeldt

Reputation: 49118

If you're using feature branches and merging them without fast forward merges, you still have only stable builds on the mainline, but can see the unstable stuff on the feature branches if desired.

Upvotes: 1

Christian Specht
Christian Specht

Reputation: 36441

Do you really need to check out ANY old revision and expect it to build?

I agree with you that you should be able to expect that the tip will always build.
This can be easily achieved, like Lazy Badger already said, by some kind of "don't push unfinished work to the main repo" policy / mutual agreement.

Concerning older revisions:

  • if you want to build older official releases of your software again (like, you're at version 1.6 now and want to make an v1.2 executable), you can expect the 1.2 tag to build as well if everybody always sticked to the "don't push unfinished work" policy.
  • if you want to take ANY revision and build it...well, do you really need this? Any bugs in previous versions will probably refer to official releases (see the "1.2 tag" stuff above), and not to something in between.
  • if you really need a buildable version from in between the official releases (for whatever reason), you'll have to look at the commit messages and find the commit that says feature 'foo' finished (and not the one that says started implementation of feature 'foo').
    Yes, this requires a bit of thinking / common sense, but I can't imagine that you will need this really often.

Upvotes: 1

Lazy Badger
Lazy Badger

Reputation: 97295

Political solution may be "don't push crap into main repo", isn't it?

Technical solution will be not tag, but one bookmark ("KnownAsGood"), applied to the last working HEAD of default branch and agreement between devs "Update not to tip, but to bookmark"

Who'll test commits and move bookmark is another question from "project management" tag

Upvotes: 1

Mark Lavin
Mark Lavin

Reputation: 25164

You can always tag your commits. These could be major/minor releases, successful builds or however you like. You can see the mercurial and mozilla tags in their repos.

Upvotes: 0

Related Questions