On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 00:40, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Thinking of that a bit more: after the Hg transition, shouldn't we be able to
> really freeze a branch that is in pre-release approval-needed mode? It is
> trivial for anyone to commit a fix to their own branch, and then instead of
> pushing th
Le Sun, 14 Mar 2010 01:03:00 +0100,
Georg Brandl a écrit :
>
> > As for pulling from committer branches: that would require that
> > committers host their branches somewhere.
>
> Yes. But that's no big deal, isn't it? They can use a public hg
> hoster like bitbucket, or we can have a facility
Am 14.03.2010 00:53, schrieb "Martin v. Löwis":
>> Thinking of that a bit more: after the Hg transition, shouldn't we be able to
>> really freeze a branch that is in pre-release approval-needed mode? It is
>> trivial for anyone to commit a fix to their own branch, and then instead of
>> pushing th
> Thinking of that a bit more: after the Hg transition, shouldn't we be able to
> really freeze a branch that is in pre-release approval-needed mode? It is
> trivial for anyone to commit a fix to their own branch, and then instead of
> pushing they'd have to notify the release manager to pull from
Am 14.03.2010 00:35, schrieb Georg Brandl:
> Am 14.03.2010 00:08, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
>> On Mar 13, 2010, at 07:11 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>>
>>>No need to file a new issue -- I've promoted 8111 to release blocker.
>>>I've added an explanation and a collective diff. No further RC is needed.
>>
