>>>>> "Rich" == Richard Lowe <richlowe at richlowe.net> writes:
Rich> It's also not correct in a multiple changesets per changegroup Rich> world (many other things are suboptimal in that situation, too). Rich> Do we still intend to encourage and support that, or do we intend Rich> to behave as we do with current policy and disallow it? I thought we were following the current onnv policy. That is, either is okay, but the fix for a single bug cannot span multiple changesets. (And ideally, they should be sufficiently tested so that one or the other can be individually backed out if necessary.) Rich> I'm generally in favour of allowing it, if we can enforce sane Rich> behaviour, but I'm starting to think that's harder than it first Rich> seemed.) If current practice continues, we will rarely see multiple changesets per changegroup. It's just too much of a hassle to construct them that way. mike
