dvcs

I have a project just getting started at http://sourceforge.net/projects/iotabuildit/ (more details at http://sourceforge.net/p/iotabuildit/wiki/Home/ ) that is currently using Mercurial for revision control. And it seems like Mercurial and SourceForge almost have all the right features or elements to put together the collaboration mechanism I have in mind for this project, but I think I'm not quite there yet. I want people to be able to submit, discuss and vote on individual changes from a large number of individuals (more developers than a project would normally have). And I want it to be as

When I try to get into the interactive rebase mode as explained here , all I'm getting is noop which is weird but I cannot figure out why. I am inside a temp branch in my machine and when I try to view the difference between, I get this: Tugberk@TUGBERKPC /D/Dropbox/AppsPublic/gulp-aspnet-k (temp-a) $ git log --pretty=oneline temp-a..ajryan/dev f0ef4ee40fde4de5360515fd556de9c3ed40431c update readme with new optionsfcba1ae3306ae041a1d82647e4cf65a0c96fe2f7 do not loop for build, restore8bedd238660908f06d698815ef12fce786d716ed fix command concat e2e3a0d00e3950911c00c0e6e51a671f5f2ac2d3 bump

This may not be a git specific question, but it comes up in the context of git. The idea may apply more broadly to other vcs's. I am working on a small project in which I am currently the only developer. I'm getting used to using git, so I am wondering about best practices. As I implement new features/functions, I find that I work on multiple files, their examples, and documentation at once, such that my git status may report 15 files that have changed. But those files might relate to 3 different parts of the project. Is it better to commit them in 3 separate parts, keeping the related files

I like creating named branches in Mercurial to deal with features that might take a while to code, so when I push I do a hg push -r default to ensure I'm only pushing changes to the default branch. However, it is a pain to have to remember -r default every time I do do a push or outgoing command. So I tried fix this by adding this config to my ~/.hgrc: [defaults] push = push -r default outgoing = outgoing -r default The problem is, those config lines are not really defaults, they are aliases. They work as intended until I try to do a hg push -r <some revision> . And the "default" I've setup

Let's say you do hg status and you have three files modified. I know how to check in all three files ( hg commit ). But how can you check in (and then hg push ) just one of the modified files? Please check the output of hg help commit which reveals that you can do hg commit foo.c if you just want to commit a single file. This is just like Subversion and many other systems — no hocus-pocus :-) Just do: hg ci -I path/to/file -m "commited only one file" That commits only one file, and you can push it, and none of the uncommitted changes will be affected. dimo414 On the off chance you're running

We've seen and watched the videos on how large distributed teams are using Git, but what about those of us who aren't distributed and who work in the office with the rest of our team? How should we be structuring our repository(ies) and our workflow? Think about the traditional office which has been using Subversion or CVS as the single point of authority. Certainly these teams could each maintain their own Git repository and push/pull between each other as necessary, which would quickly turn into a nightmare in many situations. Or, they could each maintain their own repository and sync with a