On Sep 30, 2010, at 12:04 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:30:10 -0400 >Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: >> One other thought: IME patches in general are suboptimal to >> branches, so I think we should be encouraging people to publish >> their branches publicly for review. A diff is a decent way to get >> feedback about code changes, but that's often only part of the work >> involved in deciding whether a change should be accepted or not. A >> reviewer often wants to do a build with the changes, test them on >> various tasks and application, run the test suite, etc. For this, >> "merge" is much better than patch(1). > >When I review a patch, I will tend to assume that the poster has >already run the test suite (especially if it's another committer). >Having to checkout a branch and generate a diff myself would make it >much longer to produce a review, in most cases.
Yep, it depends on who is submitting the branch, what the branch changes, etc. >Even rebuilding a new branch from scratch can be slower than applying >the diff in an existing checkout and letting `make` rebuild a couple of >files. You can have "co-located" branches[1] which essentially switch in-place, so if a branch is changing some .c files, you won't have to rebuild the whole world just to try out a patch. -Barry [1] I only have experience with these in Bazaar so Mercurial's might work differently or be called something different.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
