On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 13:25:54 +0100, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > The problem now is that patches in the development branch are > > "forgotten" and not backported when appropiate > > Sorry, do you have real examples of this?
I can't point you at specific examples, but I remember reading issues where the comment was made that a fix had been "forgotten". Sometimes it gets into a point release, sometimes it gets forgotten until after the minor version goes into security mode. I think this happened most when people were relying on other people doing mass merges, when the mass merges stopped happening, but I'm not sure. > > If we up-port, no patch is forgotten. The rule should be: "patches in > > n+1 are a SUPERSET of patches in n". With this rule, mercurial takes > > care of everything (a patch in n+1 can 'undo' a patch up-ported from n, > > if needed, keeping the rule). > > That's a theoretical and IMO naïve point of view. In practice, there are > many changesets that will not "up-port" cleanly and will need manual > work. The work will not be much less than with down-porting. As Nick pointed it, it is much worse to forget to forward port a patch than to forget to back port it. We have had a few of the former even with our current workflow, and it is really embarrassing when it happens[*]. -- R. David Murray www.bitdance.com [*] And I can reference you to one mistake, where the Mercurial-style workflow was used: at one point the version number of the email package was bumped in a release candidate branch but the bump wasn't forward ported to the mainline.
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
