Re: enquiry about the geometry package

[Juan Pablo Carbajal]

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:12 PM, John Swensen <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On May 2, 2016, at 7:44 AM, amr mohamed <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am willing to contribute to the geometry package as a part of the GSOC .
> I have created a bitbucket repo (
> https://bitbucket.org/amr_keleg/octave-geometry ) to share my code there for
> reviews.
> The repo has three branches :
> upstream - default - stable .
> Should i add my future scripts to the default branch?
>
> Regards,
> Amr
>
>
> I think the preferred method is for you to start a “feature branch” where
> you put a well-defined portion of your work in a branch and then make a
> “pull-request” to the maintainer (see http://wiki.octave.org/Mercurial for
> the different ways of submitting changes).
>
> I personally like the feature-branch and pull-request method of working the
> best. It keeps things well defined, isolated, and it is easy to just give a
> commit id from your repository to the maintainer to pull the changes into
> the octave-forge default branch.
>
> John S.
>
I a not sure you can cross pull request between bitbucket and octave forge.
I suggest you just develop in your code and then build patches
(changeset) and commit them to the savanah tracker
http://wiki.octave.org/Mercurial#Creating_changesets_files_with_hg