On Feb 04, 2011, at 05:25 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: >On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 16:49, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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). > >That's exactly the idea of the Mercurial way. You type hg merge ><branch> and it will merge everything from the other branch that >hasn't been merged yet (where both "blocking", in svnmerge >terminology, and merging count as having been merged).
Doesn't that mean that the person doing the forward port will potentially have to review a lot more code than the fix they specifically want to make? IOW, if I apply a patch to 3.1 and forget to forward port it to 3.2 and the trunk, then you also apply a patch to 3.1 and *do* the forward port, you could end up with conflicts resulting from my merge. That change might or might not make sense to you, but in a way, you shouldn't even have to worry about it because it interrupts the work you're doing on your patch. What if my fix for 3.1 isn't applicable to 3.2 or the trunk? Wouldn't it be better for you to have to only deal with your change, and then admonish me for not completing my patch by making sure it is correctly committed to all branches in which it applies? -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
