RetroSearch Browse

Sun Mar 6 17:49:40 CET 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/108813.html

On 06.03.2011 17:15, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote:
>> If you don't change repo configuration after these commands, "hg pull" in the
>> 3.2 repo will pull from the local cpython repo.  I'd advise to set the "default"
>> entry in each of the clones' .hg/hgrc file to http://hg.python.org/cpython
>> (as a committer you should be using ssh://hg@hg.python.org/cpython BTW).
>>
>> This way, "hg push" and "hg pull" communicate with the remote repo.  You can
>> still exchange commits with the other local clones by using, for example,
>> "hg push ../3.2".  (You can also add another entry in the .hgrc's [paths]
>> section if you want to give nicknames to these path names).
> 
> Given the recommended workflow in the devguide (i.e. when forward
> porting bug fixes, update all public branches in a single push),
> keeping the transitive connections between local clones is probably a
> good idea. It also means that we can do the full porting workflow even
> when offline.

Sure, it's anyone's choice.

I wouldn't go so far as to call this a "connection".  It is really important
for everyone to understand that every clone is a standalone entity, and the
*only* thing that makes up this "connection" is the single entry
"default = ..." in the repo's .hg/hgrc.

Georg

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/108813.html below:

[Python-Dev] hg pull failed