Am 04.02.2011 13:25, schrieb Antoine Pitrou: > >> 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?
If you really want to know, I can dig them out. I'm fairly sure I owe 10 or 20 backports to somebody. Some of them may have been backported by somebody else meanwhile. In many cases, the bug tracker will indicate that a backport is still pending, but sometimes, it's really just forgotten "for good". I personally don't see that as a problem. If somebody really wants a certain bug fixed, they can open a new bug report and request a backport. >> 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. I'm really with Nick here - I don't view *that* as the real problem with the "natural" workflow. Instead, I also predict that some committers just won't bother with backporting (even if they currently do backport in svn). So with the new workflow, even more patches will be forgotten wrt. backporting. It would still be possible that somebody else backports for them, but that will be more tedious than it is now with svnmerge (since you first have to transplant, and then merge back the transplanted patch, which should come out as a no-op - but the merge must be recorded). Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
