We are looking to move our team (~10 developers) from SVN to mercurial. We are trying to figure out how to manage our workflow. In particular, we are trying to see if creating remote heads is the right solution.
We currently have a very large repository with multiple, related projects. They share a lot of code, but pieces of the project are deployed by different teams (3 teams) independent of other portions of the code-base. So each team is working on concurrent large features.
The way we currently handles this in SVN are branches. Team1 has a branch for Feature1, same deal for the other teams. When Team1 finishes their change, it gets merged into the trunk and deployed out. The other teams follow suite when their project is complete, merging of course.
So my initial thought are using Named Branches for these situations. Team1 makes a Feature1 branch off of the default branch in Hg. Now, here is the question. Should the team PUSH that branch, in it's current/half-state to the repository. This will create a second head in the core repo.
My initial reaction was "NO!" as it seems like a bad idea. Handling multiple heads on our repository just sounds awful, but there are some advantages...
First, the teams want to setup Continuous Integration to build this branch during their development cycle(months long). This will only work if the CI can pull this branch from the repo. This is something we do now with SVN, copy a CI build and change the branch. Easy.
Second, it makes it easier for any team member to jump onto the branch and start working. Without pushing to the core repo, they would have to receive a push from a developer on that team with the changeset information. It is also possible to lose local commits to hardware failure. The chances increase a lot if it's a branch by a single developer who has followed the "don't push until finished" approach.
And lastly is just for ease of use. The developers can easily just commit and push on their branch at any time without consequence(as they do today, in their SVN branches).
Is there a better way to handle this scenario that I may be missing? I just want a veteran's opinion before moving forward with the strategy.
For bug fixes we like the general workflow of mecurial, anonymous branches that only consist of 1-2 commits. The simplicity is great for those cases.
By the way, I've read this , great article which seems to favor Named branches.
