RE: enquiry about the geometry package

[Amr Mohamed]

> Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 18:28:52 +0200
> Subject: Re: enquiry about the geometry package
> From: address@hidden
> To: address@hidden
> CC: address@hidden; address@hidden
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:12 PM, John Swensen <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > On May 2, 2016, at 7:44 AM, amr mohamed <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I am willing to contribute to the geometry package as a part of the GSOC .
> > I have created a bitbucket repo (
> > https://bitbucket.org/amr_keleg/octave-geometry ) to share my code there for
> > reviews.
> > The repo has three branches :
> > upstream - default - stable .
> > Should i add my future scripts to the default branch?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Amr
> >
> >
> > I think the preferred method is for you to start a “feature branch” where
> > you put a well-defined portion of your work in a branch and then make a
> > “pull-request” to the maintainer (see http://wiki.octave.org/Mercurial for
> > the different ways of submitting changes).
> >
> > I personally like the feature-branch and pull-request method of working the
> > best. It keeps things well defined, isolated, and it is easy to just give a
> > commit id from your repository to the maintainer to pull the changes into
> > the octave-forge default branch.
> >
> > John S.
> >
> I a not sure you can cross pull request between bitbucket and octave forge.
> I suggest you just develop in your code and then build patches
> (changeset) and commit them to the savanah tracker
> http://wiki.octave.org/Mercurial#Creating_changesets_files_with_hg

Ok then i will create a new feature branch on my bitbucket repo and push my code there as it permits both creating a pull-request (if possible) and creating patches.
I think this is the best choice to make now and see how things will go in the future.

 
Thanks .

Amr