Merging XMPP SoC branch

Chris Forsythe chris at
Fri Jul 13 20:01:23 EDT 2007

Ethan Blanton wrote:

>Chris Forsythe spake unto us the following wisdom:
>>Ethan Blanton wrote:
>>>Augie and Andreas can sync among each other, of course.  It's 2007.
>>>Any revisions from Augie which Andreas subsequently syncs to
>>>will be accepted the same as any other.
>>Is there a best practices document for this somewhere? Maybe the 
>>equivalent to the svn book or just some documentation on the Pidgin wiki 
>>which should have been followed?
>This isn't a "should have been followed" thing, really, and it's not
>at all about tricky version control checkin-fu.  It's simply a benefit
>of having a capable DVCS.  (The propagate discussion, elsewhere in
>this thread, *is* sort of about checkin-fu, but it is likewise simply
>a benefit of having a capable *VCS*, no D required.  Subversion really
>is That Bad, which is, I suspect, why no propagates were performed --
>anyone who's been scarred by trying to actually merge with subversion
>(or CVS) would certainly avoid it like the plague.)  The point of a
>DVCS is that any developer can sync with any other developer, at any
>time.  This means that Andreas and Augie could set up a rendezvous
>server on one of their boxes (or simply pass a database with the new
>revisions, or whatever) and work between themselves, without involving
>, or that Andreas could proxy revisions into the
>database on behalf of Augie.

Yes, but none of this says how you guys want to do things in a 
documented way of some kind.

>Ideally, as time goes by, many of our contributions would be taken
>directly from third-party developers by way of monotone, and simply
>pushed to the public repository (probably with an approval, which is
>just a certificate binding a revision to a branch, in this case by a
>known developer).
For Adium we wrote up how we want patch contributors to submit patches, 
that might be useful for you guys to do the same thing.

>If there is anything out of this discussion which could be usefully
>added to UsingPidginMonotone[1], someone should certainly add it -- I
>created that document with enough help to get people started, and the
>intent that, as people found tricky things or useful things, they
>would share them with other developers.  (Which is why it's on the
>wiki, and not a static web page.)

It'd be nice if the documentation sent in the previous email could be 
added to the documentation (of course, reworded and all that) so that 
others don't fall into the potential pitfall here.

My question was more about Pidgin policy than anything else, sorry it 
was not clear.


More information about the Devel mailing list