On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Susan Dittmar <susan.ditt...@gmx.de> wrote: > When I pull the current (official) state of the project, I do *not* want to > debug my collegue's current work! That's OK for bugs he cannot find. But > not for things he only broke because he's just currently doing a change > there. > > So if I want to combine those requirements, I need some mechanism to ensure > updates are only made from the publishable states, not from intermittent > states. Of course there's a lot of ways to accomplish that. Branches come > to mind for example.
Exactly: everyone would have a "pull-from-here" branch, which would contain work that is ready to be shared with others. For me this solution sounded natural. > But I thought (and think) the 'master repository' approach is the easiest > way to do that, especially if not all involved want to dig into the > workings of the repository tool. And who wants? Usually you just want a > tool to do the job... In addition the 'master repository' approach makes > things like automated daily builds easier, and that might help in quality > control. Good point, i haven't thought about that. cheers, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
