On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Brett wrote:
>>> Of course, we've talked about doing something like this before, it's
>>> just never irritated anyone enough for them to sit down and *write*
>>> the associated NEWS file generator, or the code to split the existing
>>> NEW
On May 26, 2013 1:15 PM, "Brett Cannon" wrote:
>
>
> On May 25, 2013 9:18 PM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > >> The NEWS update script could even use the revision history to decide
> > >> which order to add entries to the bulleted list.
> >
On May 25, 2013 9:18 PM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >> The NEWS update script could even use the revision history to decide
> >> which order to add entries to the bulleted list.
> >
> > I think the annoyance with this approach is you will have
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> The NEWS update script could even use the revision history to decide
>> which order to add entries to the bulleted list.
>
> I think the annoyance with this approach is you will have to remember
> to add a file every time you do anything wort
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>> I like where you're heading with this but it still leaves merges during
>> Spruits and when a few people are working at once by putting stuff in a
>> single file.
I don't know if s
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
> I like where you're heading with this but it still leaves merges during
> Spruits and when a few people are working at once by putting stuff in a
> single file.
>
> Per news item / per issue files for each release that are riled up into th
On May 25, 2013 8:29 AM, "Gregory P. Smith" wrote:
>
>
> On May 25, 2013 1:40 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Eric Snow
wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Raymond Hettinger
> > > wrote:
> > >> and it recognizes that users don't really need to look a
On May 25, 2013 1:40 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Eric Snow
wrote:
> > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Raymond Hettinger
> > wrote:
> >> and it recognizes that users don't really need to look across merge
> >> boundaries.
> >
> > This is tricky though for any p
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> The 3.3 branch layout would look like this:
>>
>> NEWS.next/
>> 3.3.txt # Categorised changes
>
> Categorized how? E.g. Core,Lib,Docs, etc.? Or "3.3 only", "3.3 and 3.4"?
J
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Eric Snow
> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Raymond Hettinger
>> wrote:
>>> and it recognizes that users don't really need to look across merge
>>> boundaries.
>>
>> This is tricky though for any
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Eric Snow wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
>> and it recognizes that users don't really need to look across merge
>> boundaries.
>
> This is tricky though for any patch that is forward-ported to a
> release branch (a la 3.2->3.3
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
> and it recognizes that users don't really need to look across merge
> boundaries.
This is tricky though for any patch that is forward-ported to a
release branch (a la 3.2->3.3). How can you tell from MISC/News in
which release (e.g. 3.3
On May 24, 2013, at 7:09 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I think that's overly complicated. I don't see why we need anything
> more than simply NEWS/3.4, NEWS/3.3, etc. and just split the files per
> feature release since that's the interest (and merge) boundary.
+1 from me. This is a straight-forwa
On 25 May 2013 13:05, "R. David Murray" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:16:24 -0600, "Gregory P. Smith"
wrote:
> > On May 24, 2013 2:55 PM, "Antoine Pitrou" wrote:
> > >
> > > Le vendredi 24 mai 2013 à 16:22 -0400, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't understand why it's painful
On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:16:24 -0600, "Gregory P. Smith" wrote:
> On May 24, 2013 2:55 PM, "Antoine Pitrou" wrote:
> >
> > Le vendredi 24 mai 2013 à 16:22 -0400, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand why it's painful to backport. Can you explain?
> > >
> > > If I make a very m
On May 24, 2013 2:55 PM, "Antoine Pitrou" wrote:
>
> Le vendredi 24 mai 2013 à 16:22 -0400, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> > >
> > > I don't understand why it's painful to backport. Can you explain?
> >
> > If I make a very minor fix to the docs I have to:
> >
> > # In a 3.3 checkout
> > Fix docs
> > Co
On May 24, 2013 2:26 PM, "Benjamin Peterson" wrote:
>
> 2013/5/24 Brett Cannon :
> > It's an extreme example, but for instance I added an entry for this
> > sys.modules change where I just added a clarifying sentence. Probably
> > not needed but wanted to make sure that people got the message they
Le vendredi 24 mai 2013 à 16:22 -0400, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> >
> > I don't understand why it's painful to backport. Can you explain?
>
> If I make a very minor fix to the docs I have to:
>
> # In a 3.3 checkout
> Fix docs
> Compile docs
> Add Misc/NEWS entry
> hg ci -m "repeat what I just said
Another replay that did not show up on list.
On 5/24/2013 9:00 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
would be great. And maybe it's finally time to bite the bullet and
come up with some way to automatically generate Misc/NEWS from commit
messages.
No, c
2013/5/24 Brett Cannon :
> It's an extreme example, but for instance I added an entry for this
> sys.modules change where I just added a clarifying sentence. Probably
> not needed but wanted to make sure that people got the message they
> shouldn't replace sys.modules.
Does anybody actually ready
Trying again, as my response 2 hours ago never showed up
On 5/24/2013 8:24 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I was trying to do a simple merge of a doc change between 3.3 and
default and the usual Misc/NEWS conflict came up.
I have had things like this happen and after pain iwth kdiff3 just
edited the de
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 4:18 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:26:29 -0400, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> > Le vendredi 24 mai 2013 à 14:23 -0400, Brett Cannon a écrit :
>> >> > You'll have to copy stuff by hand, though, if you
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le vendredi 24 mai 2013 à 15:26 -0400, Brett Cannon a écrit :
>> >> Either way the status quo makes me not want to fix small doc typos
>> >> like a missing parenthesis since this is enough of a hassle to not
>> >> make it worth it.
>> >
>> >
On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:26:29 -0400, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > Le vendredi 24 mai 2013 à 14:23 -0400, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> >> > You'll have to copy stuff by hand, though, if you don't want to rely on
> >> > the
> >> > merge machinery. S
On 5/24/2013 9:00 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
would be great. And maybe it's finally time to bite the bullet and
come up with some way to automatically generate Misc/NEWS from commit
messages.
No, commit messages do not a NEWS file make.
They
Le vendredi 24 mai 2013 à 15:26 -0400, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> >> Either way the status quo makes me not want to fix small doc typos
> >> like a missing parenthesis since this is enough of a hassle to not
> >> make it worth it.
> >
> > Do you mean Mics/NEWS doc typos?
>
> No I mean typos in the d
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le vendredi 24 mai 2013 à 14:23 -0400, Brett Cannon a écrit :
>> > You'll have to copy stuff by hand, though, if you don't want to rely on the
>> > merge machinery. So we have two possible file layouts:
>> >
>> > * (current) a single Misc/NE
Le vendredi 24 mai 2013 à 14:23 -0400, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> > You'll have to copy stuff by hand, though, if you don't want to rely on the
> > merge machinery. So we have two possible file layouts:
> >
> > * (current) a single Misc/NEWS is merged from branch to branch. Pro: hg
> > merge
> > cop
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Brett wrote:
>>> Of course, we've talked about doing something like this before, it's
>>> just never irritated anyone enough for them to sit down and *write*
>>> the associated NEWS file generator, or the code to split the existing
>>> NE
On 5/24/2013 8:24 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I was trying to do a simple merge of a doc change between 3.3 and
default and the usual Misc/NEWS conflict came up.
I have had things like this happen and after pain iwth kdiff3 just
edited the default version
But when I looked at
the diff it was mass
On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:39:16 +0200, "Antoine Pitrou"
wrote:
> Brett wrote:
> >> Of course, we've talked about doing something like this before, it's
> >> just never irritated anyone enough for them to sit down and *write*
> >> the associated NEWS file generator, or the code to split the existing
Brett wrote:
>> Of course, we've talked about doing something like this before, it's
>> just never irritated anyone enough for them to sit down and *write*
>> the associated NEWS file generator, or the code to split the existing
>> NEWS file for the active branches :)
>
> I think that's overly com
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> I was trying to do a simple merge of a doc change between 3.3 and
>> default and the usual Misc/NEWS conflict came up. But when I looked at
>> the diff it was massive! Turns out that Mi
24.05.13 15:24, Brett Cannon написав(ла):
I was trying to do a simple merge of a doc change between 3.3 and
default and the usual Misc/NEWS conflict came up. But when I looked at
the diff it was massive! Turns out that Misc/NEWS in default goes from
3.3.1rc1 to 3.4.0a1
(http://hg.python.org/cpyth
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I was trying to do a simple merge of a doc change between 3.3 and
> default and the usual Misc/NEWS conflict came up. But when I looked at
> the diff it was massive! Turns out that Misc/NEWS in default goes from
> 3.3.1rc1 to 3.4.0a1
> (http:
I was trying to do a simple merge of a doc change between 3.3 and
default and the usual Misc/NEWS conflict came up. But when I looked at
the diff it was massive! Turns out that Misc/NEWS in default goes from
3.3.1rc1 to 3.4.0a1
(http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/24ffb0148729/Misc/NEWS) while
Misc/N
36 matches
Mail list logo
