Am 24.08.2013 22:38, schrieb Tim Peters: > [Tim, wondering why the 3.2 branch isn't "inactive"] > > [Georg Brandl] >> FWIW I have no real objections, I just don't see the gain. > > I'm glad it's OK! Especially because it's already been done ;-) > > Two gains: > > 1. "hg branches" output now matches what the developer docs imply it > should be. It didn't before.
Well, the dev docs are not dogma and could be changed :) > 2. If a security fix needs to made to 3.2, it will be much easier to > forward-merge it to the 3.3 and default branches now (the merges won't > suck in a pile of ancient, and unwanted, irrelevant-to-the-fix > changes). It's unusual to develop a security fix on 3.2; usually the fix is done in the active branches and then backported to security-only branches. But I get the consistency argument (and especially the .hgtags entry is nice to have in the newer branches). cheers, Georg _______________________________________________ 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
