On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:30 AM, R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> wrote: >> 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[*].
On the other hand, if *any* forward port naturally picks up all the missed forward ports, then the Mercurial perspective starts to make more sense (especially if the merge is able to exploit the DAG in order to make fewer mistakes). I'd definitely like to see some specific guidance from the Mercurial veterans on how they handle developing against multiple branches, though. From the sound of it, there's going to be a lot more hopping around between branches for different activities once it goes live. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
