On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:34:33 -0500, Tim Peters <tim.pet...@gmail.com> wrote: > [Brett] > > ... > > After reading that sentence I realize there is a key "not" missing: "I see > > no reason NOT to help visibly shutter the 3.2. branch ...". IOW I say do the > > null merge. Sorry about that. > > No problem! Since I've been inactive for a long time, it's good for > me to practice vigorously defending what's currently documented - > tests my understanding, and lets me annoy people at the same time ;-) > > Here's what I intend to do (unless an objection appears): > > hg up 3.3 > hg merge 3.2 > # merge in the v3.2.5 tag definition from .hgtags, > # but revert everything else > hg revert -a -X .hgtags -r . > hg resolve -a -m > hg diff # to ensure that only the v3.2.5 tag in .hgtags changed > hg commit
You'll need a push here, too. And at that point it may fail. It may be the case that only Georg can push to 3.2, I don't remember for sure. (Note that it may not have been Antoine who did the push of that patch to 3.2...if Georg used transplant, for example, it would show as Antoine's commit, IIUC.) I agree that it would cause less developer mind-overhead if the branch were merged. Georg has been scarce lately...if the branch is locked, there are people besides him who can unlock it (Antoine, for one). --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
