Pull requests or branches/merges.

[ouboub]

Hi

John just raised the question pull requests or branches

"JC" == John Ciolfi @.***> writes:

Should we be using branches or fork's? I like the github fork and then
pull-request (PR) model.

I thought pull requests are useful for those users, that do not have
write access. I understand the logic is

1. Fork (basically a clone)
2. Clone it locally if needed
3. Create a new branch
4. commit
5. Start a pull request.

But for collaborators that do have write access, I find branches much
more natural and useful,

1. I pull
2. I inspect/we discuss
3. I merge into default.

Maybe I am too much of a mercurial user, but the pull request workflow reminds me of the old days when for a
while mercurial did not have branches, you had to clone the whole repository in case you wanted well to branch.

For example, regarding Nidish's recent pull request, since I prefer to check everything locally using emacs, I am forced to clone his fork and investigate his branch. In this case, I fail to see the advantage over the branch model!

A different issue is the question, whether pull request make it easy to contribute without having write access. I agree, completely, but for users with write access?

Opinions?
Uwe

[JohnC32]

Commit 89edaa3 updates CONTRIBUTING.org to add guidelines for maintainers. Also see the discussion we had on issue #2 regarding this. If this looks good, please close this issue. Thanks.

[ouboub]

CONTRIBUTING.org to add guidelines for maintainers. Also see the
discussion we had on issue #2 regarding this. If this looks good,
please close this issue. Thanks.

Ok, I added some small changes, emphasizing that even for pull request the creation of a new branch is recommended.