Mercurial updating to public failed
My pull request story telling begins by thinking about potential layers (for example, front- versus back-end) and considering upfront refactorings that can make the final solution cleaner.
It is then a matter of $ hg qseries add-boolean-field.patch logic-to-detect-new-branch-case.patch toggle-checkbox-on-new-branch-change.patch show-new-branch-indicator-in-view.patch compare-view-ajax-url-new-branches.patch fix-get_compare_url-for-pull-requests.patch automatically updates the patch file’s hunk headers (that is, line offsets) when you edit the context surrounding modified lines in a patch.
Let’s amend our preliminary fix (and fix the lame commit message while we’re at it): Now that you know how to share your own mutable history across multiple computers, you might be wondering if it makes sense to share mutable history with others.
It does, but you have to be careful, stay alert, and with your peers.
Similarly, it doesn’t matter if reviews are conducted in person, by email, or by carrier pigeon.
Code review is outside of the scope of Mercurial, so all we’re looking at here is the mechanics of committing, amending, pushing, and pulling.
However, a large pull request that touches many files and spans multiple commits makes for a difficult diff to review.
Once a particular changeset passes review, the respective author (Alice or Bob) pushes it to the public (publishing) repository.
Incidentally, the reviewers here can be anyone: maybe Bob and Alice review each other’s work; maybe the same third party reviews both; or maybe they pick different experts to review their work on different parts of a large codebase.
Mercurial revision numbers are never stable when working across repositories, especially when obsolescence is involved. Pushing only adds changesets to a remote repository; it does not update the working directory (unless you have a hook that updates for you).
Now let’s imagine the tests failed because we didn’t use proper punctuation and capitalization (oops).