On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 at 15:26, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
The merge process itself is more or less clear. What I'm missing
is the agreed upon strategy for applying the patches to the various
branches.
I've seen a few discussions about this, but no final statement
of what strategy to follow and whether hg makes this easier (AFAIR,
that was the main argument for switching to hg).
I think the main reason for switching was that it would make it easier
for non-core-committers to maintain branches and submit patches (as
changesets core committers can pull). I don't think it was ever clear
that the merge workflow would in fact get easier, except insofar as
hg's merge support is better than SVN's (at least, I believe people
have said that last is true). There is _hope_ that it will be easier,
but I think it remains to be proven/worked out. And I believe there is
no tool like svnmerge for tracking changesets to be merged, which could
be an issue that needs a resolution.
IIUC, the discussion about named versus cloned branches is part of
figuring out the workflow....
--David
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
