bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Olemis Lang <ole...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Guidance needed to contribute to Bloodhound
Date Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:13:50 GMT
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Saint Germain <saintger@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello !
>
>
:)


> On 13 November 2013 11:18, Gary Martin <gary.martin@wandisco.com> wrote:
> >> We can get the source from Subversion, from Github and Bitbucket and
> >> patches can be sent through patch/diff, github pull request and
> >> mercurial mq pull request.
> >> But what is the recommended  method ?
> >
>

I use the MQ extension . It's an awesome approach to develop patches and
get a clean history record in the main repository , it also serves to the
purpose of applying a patch on top of different branches and experiment a
little with low risk and the possibility of discarding
unwanted/unsuccessful attempts .


> >
> > We might struggle to notice anything through github and bitbucket so the
> > best bet is to go with a patch/diff at the moment. You should be able to
> > either email patches to this list or attach them to a ticket on
> > issues.apache.org/bloodhound.
> >
>
> As I have explained in the other answer, I have tried this with:
> https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/694
>
> But it was a bit difficult to manage as soon as you are 2
> collaborating on the same patches.
>
>
yes ... patches may be stacked on top of each other (qnew) , and eventually
merged (qfold)


> >> For instance, I saw that Olemis is using Bitbucket and mercurial-mq a
> >> lot, so I decided to invest a little time to learn it to try his
> >> patches. However I have some questions:
> >>
> >> 1) From where can I get the trunk ? If I qclone bloodhound-mq, I don't
> >> see the most recent commit in Bloodhound.
> >> I can use hgsubversion or hg-git to get the source from the official
> >> repo, but I was expecting an up-to-date mirror on Bitbucket ?
> >
> >
> > I am not aware of anything that can be considered an official mirror of
> the
> > repo on bitbucket so you would be relying on Olemis to keep his copy
> updated
> > with changes. The github mirror should automatically update.
>

I've update the patch queue repository few minutes ago .
I'll automate this later today and inform you once this will be ready ... I
apologize if this caused you any trouble ...
;)


> >
> > Sorry that doesn't really answer the question but if you want source
> control
> > for your patches, github might be a better bet for this reason.
>
> No problem, hg-git is working perfectly for me and I can directly pull
> the changes from github.
> It is just that I needed mercurial to be able to test Olemis patches
> in is mercurial-mq.
>

you should be able to move forward now ... if they do not work with trunk
then beware of the base changeset I checked out to build them (see patch
name ;) . We could refresh them to make it work against /trunk later
;)


> Using mercurial-mq seems to be quite nice from what I have seen to
> manage/maintain patches.
>

yep ! awesome !


> I have no experience with Github pull request, but I understand that
> the principle is more or less the same.


... yes and no . Git will provide you with changesets , but MQ will
transform each patch into a Ā«movableĀ» virtual changeset . It may be
(un)loaded at will . There should be a similar extension doing the same
thing (or maybe better ;) for git though .


So if diff/patches are not
> working for some specific ticket, are we allowed to submit patches
> through Github pull request ?
>

I do not know . In theory, using the combination of MQ + (hgsubversion |
hgsvn) it's possible to experiment with patches and transform them into
changesets (qfinish) that can be uploaded to the svn repository directly
(... thus keeping a clean history ;) .

[...]

-- 
Regards,

Olemis - @olemislc

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message