On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:38 AM, Jesus Cea <j...@jcea.es> wrote: > Now we have two options. > > The easier and "mercurial" way would be: > > 6. Pull. > 7. Merge the two heads. > 8. Merge that merge to the other branches, as necessary. Since the two > heads were already merged to other branches, this merge should be trivial. > 9. Push. > > If we have some other pushes in the meantime, repeat again from 6. You > will eventually win the race :).
There's a third option (which is what I've been doing): 6. Pull 7. Merge the heads on the oldest branch that now has multiple heads 8. Merge that branch to the next branch in line as usual. 9. Repeat 7-8 until all branches, up to and including default have been merged 10. Push. Repeat from 6 if there was another push race. It keeps the same merge flow as a normal patch (e.g. 3.1->3.2->default) without messing with local history. As far as the rest of the post goes, in principle I agree with the goal of letting us run branches from sandbox repositories on the buildbots, but am happy to leave the details to others to work out. If the buildbots are currently working the way they did with SVN (clean checkout every time) they may currently be doing a clean clone of the repository for every build anyway. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
