Help with gatekeeper workflow.

Kent Gibson warthog618 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 5 22:56:58 GMT 2009


Eric Berry wrote:
>
>
> It is a bummer. I wish the merge directive did propagate tags, but
> this is still a very useful feature regardless.
I'd like for merge-directives to be used by a PQM, so then it could
operate without public branches.  But then it wouldn't be able to
propagate tags :-(.

The upside is it is the only way to merge if don't want to propagate
tags, that I am aware of anyway.  I'd rather there was a --no-tags
option on branch, push, pull and merge.
>  
> Basically, I've created a central repository - with two users each
> having their own branch. User1 acts like a gatekeeper and has write
> access to the central repo. User2 acts like the new guy and only has
> read access to the repo. User2 makes changes, and commits them. I'm
> planning on using the send method to propagate User2's changes into
> User1's local branch. User1 will then push the changes upwards to the
> central repo.
>
> The fact that send doesn't propagate tags is ok for my purposes since
> I don't see User2 creating many tags, and User1 will most likely tag
> his branch before merging, and perhaps tag after he merges before
> pushing the changes upwards. Those tags are more important in my eyes
> than User2's local tags, but hopefully the send method will someday
> propagate the tags as well. :)
>  
That should work.   I've used the human gatekeeper approach with bzr
before, the only difference from your setup was User2 was required to
provide a public branch.

Cheers,
Kent.



More information about the bazaar mailing list