On Feb 04, 2011, at 04:10 AM, Jesus Cea wrote: >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).
I'm not totally convinced, but I'm willing to suspend my disbelieve and embrace The Mercurial Way to see how well it works in practice. ;) >> The worse possibility is that fixes may be applied to maintenance >> branches and not to the main line of development, leading to >> regressions after upgrades (since the associated tests wouldn't be >> forward ported either). > >That is not going to happen, because the mercurial merging between >maintenance and development. This is the up-porting side, and merging >should be automatic, you don't need to track anything, it is >automagically done by mercurial. Given that this workflow is a social one, encouraged but not imposed by the technology, how will we respond when things are done The Wrong Way? What are the effects if someone forgets and commits a patch to trunk first? Have we hosed the branches or is it just a PITA to recover? -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
