On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 03:23:19PM -0400, Tres Seaver wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Tres Seaver <tseaver <at> palladion.com> writes: > >> This is an excellent set of guidelines. The only drawback I see here is > >> that the current VCS situation makes doing the review more tedious than > >> it should be, especially for non-committers. Or maybe the Hg mirrors > >> are truly up-to-date and working? Last I looked, they were lagging or > >> unavailable. > > > > If you only a review a patch (rather than say maintain and evolve it), > > there's > > no point in using hg rather than SVN. > > Hmm, it feels exactly the other way around to me: working with the DVCS > tools while reviewiing a patch allows me to be more productive (e.g., > using 'bzr shelve' or the equivalent hg subcommand). > > Making a local branch / clone for each issue also feels more natural > than working in a read-only SVN checkout.
+1. I find it to be an excellent way to muck around with patches and make my own changes / diffs / etc. for a review process. (Not that I do any Python reviews, note. But it's a great technique in general.) It's also fantastically simple and esay to interact with patches that are branches on someone's bitbucket or github repo; much better than uploading and downloading patch files while in the middle of a discussion. cheers, --titus -- C. Titus Brown, c...@msu.edu _______________________________________________ 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
