I would like to commit a couple of new feature patches in the next
couple of days for #9299 (if no one else does it) and #10534 (working on
that). It appears to be somewhat customary to follow such patches with
3.1/2.7 blocks, but Georg implied in another message that the process is
obsolete i
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:53:21 -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
> I would like to commit a couple of new feature patches in the next
> couple of days for #9299 (if no one else does it) and #10534 (working on
> that). It appears to be somewhat customary to follow such patches with
> 3.1/2.7 blocks, but
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:48 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
>> .. So is it alright if I make
>> the commits and simply note in the commit messages that they are for a
>> new feature and should not be merged backwards?
>
> I think that's fine. I'm not even sure it is necessary to mention
> that it is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/12/10 21:48, R. David Murray wrote:
> My understanding of the current status of svnmerge block is that
> you should use it if it helps you and not worry about it otherwise.
> Georg and I and some others find it useful for managing our own
> patch
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 22:23:18 +0100, Jesus Cea wrote:
> On 01/12/10 21:48, R. David Murray wrote:
> > My understanding of the current status of svnmerge block is that
> > you should use it if it helps you and not worry about it otherwise.
> > Georg and I and some others find it useful for managing
2010/12/1 Terry Reedy :
> I would like to commit a couple of new feature patches in the next couple of
> days for #9299 (if no one else does it) and #10534 (working on that). It
> appears to be somewhat customary to follow such patches with 3.1/2.7 blocks,
> but Georg implied in another message th
Le 01/12/2010 21:48, R. David Murray a écrit :
> My understanding of the current status of svnmerge block is that
> you should use it if it helps you and not worry about it otherwise.
> Georg and I and some others find it useful for managing our own
> patches, but otherwise I think that it isn't be
On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 02:19:25 +0100, wrote:
> Le 01/12/2010 21:48, R. David Murray a écrit :
> > My understanding of the current status of svnmerge block is that
> > you should use it if it helps you and not worry about it otherwise.
> > Georg and I and some others find it useful for managing our
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/12/10 22:47, R. David Murray wrote:
> Mercurial can't become the primary version system until after we've had
> a test-and-work-out-the-bugs period, so IMO that schedule is going to
> have to be modified.
After two years since Mercurial decision
