RetroSearch Browse

Sat Aug 24 22:59:52 CEST 2013 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-August/128123.html

Am 24.08.2013 22:38, schrieb Tim Peters:
> [Tim, wondering why the 3.2 branch isn't "inactive"]
> 
> [Georg Brandl]
>> FWIW I have no real objections, I just don't see the gain.
> 
> I'm glad it's OK!  Especially because it's already been done ;-)
> 
> Two gains:
> 
> 1. "hg branches" output now matches what the developer docs imply it
> should be.  It didn't before.

Well, the dev docs are not dogma and could be changed :)

> 2. If a security fix needs to made to 3.2, it will be much easier to
> forward-merge it to the 3.3 and default branches now (the merges won't
> suck in a pile of ancient, and unwanted, irrelevant-to-the-fix
> changes).

It's unusual to develop a security fix on 3.2; usually the fix is done
in the active branches and then backported to security-only branches.

But I get the consistency argument (and especially the .hgtags
entry is nice to have in the newer branches).

cheers,
Georg

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-August/128123.html below:

[Python-Dev] Status of 3.2 in Hg repository?