On 08/11/2010 12:18, Łukasz Langa wrote:
Am 08.11.2010 12:55, schrieb Michael Foord:
On 08/11/2010 11:42, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
We can just customize our environments. It is easy.
I already pointed out in my last post why that's not going to solve
the problem.
Additional checks could be put in `make patchcheck` or a local commit
hook for hg.
Automation always pays off. Simplifying the process always pays off.
Providing yet another step to the workflow would be a move in the
opposite direction*.
You mean `make patchcheck` isn't *already* part of your workflow?
Michael
Is there any point in weighing each time whether a mistake is common
enough to be included in the commit hooks? It's not like we're paying
some SVN vendor a fee per hook ;-)
* A completely separate topic would be that programmer-side precommit
hooks are a terrific idea for Hg. But just as client-side form
validation doesn't free Web apps from having to implement server-side
as well, I believe hooks on the central repository should be as
complete and as restrictive as it gets.
--
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/
READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree,
on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations
and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements,
licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap,
confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use
policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your
employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in
perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges.
You further represent that you have the authority to release me
from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
_______________________________________________
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
