It use currently a mail address from me, but as Dean has admin-rights he could later change it to an adress from him. Or he can create mail address like email@example.com
which redirect to our addresses. In this case we have not only one person who can respond to mails from Bitbucket.
Or it might be one mailing list? I'm not sure which kind of mails you get from team account? I guess notifications about new repositories etc?
gerundt wrote:It think instead branches we will use own repos at Bitbucket, or? What will the name schema here? Should we keep the name "Trunk" for the unstable version? The website source could be move as "Website" to the Team account.
I think it is best to start what we have now. So one repository for the code and another for the web site. Then we can later on separate repositories if needed/decided so.
I think HG's current branch support is so good you don't really need separate "branch" repositories for devel/stable/release branches. It is much easier to work with stable branches inside one repository, you can use bookmarks etc.
But I'd prefer separate repositories (created on demand) for different development work. Say developing new big feature, testing some things etc. The way HG makes branches permanent, we should not pollute repository with all the temporary devel branches.
And this is very much related to how we want to develop further. Do we have strictly controlled official repository or the same model we had with SVN each developer having write access. I'd actually prefer the stricter approach like Linux kernel etc projects have. So we have just couple of people (maintainers) having write access to the official repository. They review, accept and pull changes from the development repository to the official repository. Unlike with SVN, HG makes this kind of development easy and effortless.