lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Source management tools for lilypond projects


From: Urs Liska
Subject: Re: Source management tools for lilypond projects
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:26:02 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1

Dear Susan,

I think this makes sense (although I can't tell if it really is what Colin wanted to express ...).

Do I understand correctly that what you describe is one possible strategy to take care of the integrity of the main source tree? And another one would be what I have the impression is going on with LilyPond development: Every contributor can commit updates, but they are only merged to the main or master tree after some kind of review process?

What I'm feeling slightly uneasy about with your suggestion is that it relies on some kind of 'lock' state. Nobody except the owner of the build token is allowed to update the master branch. This is only acceptable if it is somehow enforced by the system and doesn't rely on the reliability of the people involved. And I feel this may lock up things if someone doesn't give back the token fast enough?

Best
Urs

Am 22.05.2012 10:04, schrieb Susan Dittmar:
Dear Urs,

I think what Colin meant by "build token" is another strategy to archieve
the same as what I described with "checkin/merge to the main branch" and
"personal development branches". I think he has in mind a decentralized
version control tool, where you first work with your local version,
commiting changes to this local version (as I, using subversion/SVN, would
have done with a personal branch). Then, when he has the "build token",
he first updates his local version with the official changes, debugs his
changes until they are in a working state, and then publishes his changes.
He makes sure that the published version is up to standard, so no coworker
has to debug his stuff. In case he finds his changes make bigger fuss than
he thought, he can always give back the "build token" without making any of
his changes public (that means he reverts to the previous working thing).
Then he does local work again, and when he trusts this time he will be able
to make everything work, he again acquires the "build token" to make them
public.

So, if I understand him correctly, the strategy is the same, just the
technology used and their abilities differ.

Hope that helps,

        Susan




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]