Workflow - Tracking upstream repository with local patches

[Paul Moore]

On 12/03/2008, Ville M. Vainio <vivainio at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  >  I think I need the following - a "clean" branch from upstream, into
>  >  which I periodically pull changes, and a local branch for each of my
>  >  patches, which I maintain and periodically merge from my upstream
>  >  mirror. To submit a patch, I'd bzr diff between my branch and the
>  >  upstream mirror, and submit that.
>
>
> This might be a stupid question to ask on a bzr mailing list, but have
>  you looked into mercurial queues?

Yes, I have. I'm very torn between using Bazaar and Mercurial. The
current two key benefits of Mercurial are mercurial queues and better
handling of svn (bzr-svn is far better in theory, but in practice it
breaks horribly every time I try to use it on the Python trunk - which
is my key example of a non-trivial svn repository). The benefits of
Bazaar are that I much prefer the merge UI and the flexibility of
shared repositories. I like the fact that Bazaar seems to be
developing faster, but I dislike the plethora of repository formats
and the feeling of instability that comes from them (yes, I know packs
are it now, but there's rich-root for bzr-svn, and loom seems to have
its own subformat, etc).

Frankly, I'd rather not have to choose. The decision is too close to
call, and I feel like whichever I decide on, I'll end up regretting
the lack of *something* from the other :-( If I choose Bazaar, it will
definitely be Mercurial Queues that I regret the lack of.

Paul.