On Nov 19, 2010, at 06:12 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: >Am 19.11.2010 15:46, schrieb Barry Warsaw: >> On Nov 19, 2010, at 11:50 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >>>- date SVN will go read only >> >> Please note that svn cannot be made completely read-only. We've already >> decided that versions already in maintenance or security-only mode (2.5, 2.6, >> 2.7, 3.1) will get updates and releases only via svn. But only the release >> managers should have write access to the svn repositories. > >Really? I can understand this for security-only branches (commits there will >be rare, and equivalent commits to the Mercurial branches can be made by >others than the release managers, in order to keep history consistent). > >But having the maintenance branches (by then, that will mostly be 2.7 because >3.1 will go to security-only mode soon) in SVN will be a burden for every >developer, since they have to backport bugfixes from Hg to SVN... Maybe I misremembered Martin's suggestion, and he was only talking about security releases. I think the key thing is whether you're going to backport the vcs related bits to stable releases. I plan to only do releases for 2.6 from svn, because it's not worth breaking things like sys.subversion, and as you say the number of commits will be small. -Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20101119/ccb1f383/attachment.pgp>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4