On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 18:47, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk> > wrote: > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > >> From: Éric Araujo <mer...@netwok.org> > >> > From what I understand, we're supposed to forward-port in Mercurial, > >> Correct, but only in maintained branches, not security-mode branches. > >> > > > > Well, I saw this recent mail from Antoine: > > > > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/108766.html > > > > where he mentioned > > > > > > - on one hand: 2.5 -> 2.6 -> 2.7 (if you still want to maintain 2.5) > > - on the other hand: 3.1 -> 3.2 -> default > > > > and perhaps misunderstood. I was assuming that there wouldn't be any 2.6 > > releases from Mercurial, perhaps that assumption was unwarranted. > > > > Also, the section on forward-porting in the Dev Guide says "it should be > applied > > to the oldest branch applicable" and this could be interpreted to mean > > applicable based on the content of the branch, rather than according to > release > > policy. > > It's the intersection: if the change applies to the content of that > branch and that branch is still maintained, then start there. > > So security fixes start further back than ordinary bug fixes. > > This should be reverted in 2.6, with the dummy merge to prevent > inadvertent reversion in 2.7. > Just to be clear on this, so people don't think this is more complicated than it needs to be: you can still *develop* a patch based on 2.5, even commit it to your local repository, and then only push it to 2.6 or 2.7 and later. You don't have to consider where the patch should go beforehand. -- Thomas Wouters <tho...@python.org> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
_______________________________________________ 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
