RetroSearch Browse

Tue Jul 7 16:17:21 CEST 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-July/090507.html

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 at 15:26, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> The merge process itself is more or less clear. What I'm missing
> is the agreed upon strategy for applying the patches to the various
> branches.
>
> I've seen a few discussions about this, but no final statement
> of what strategy to follow and whether hg makes this easier (AFAIR,
> that was the main argument for switching to hg).

I think the main reason for switching was that it would make it easier
for non-core-committers to maintain branches and submit patches (as
changesets core committers can pull).  I don't think it was ever clear
that the merge workflow would in fact get easier, except insofar as
hg's merge support is better than SVN's (at least, I believe people
have said that last is true).  There is _hope_ that it will be easier,
but I think it remains to be proven/worked out.  And I believe there is
no tool like svnmerge for tracking changesets to be merged, which could
be an issue that needs a resolution.

IIUC, the discussion about named versus cloned branches is part of
figuring out the workflow....

--David

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-July/090507.html below:

[Python-Dev] Mercurial migration: progress report (PEP 385)