I imagine many of you will have seen this, but it's worth over-posting to make
sure everyone gets to see it who is interested.
http://www.codesimplicity.com/post/open-source-community-simplified/
regards
Steve
___
python-committers mailing list
python
On 02/02/2011 13:25, Steve Holden wrote:
I imagine many of you will have seen this, but it's worth over-posting to make
sure everyone gets to see it who is interested.
http://www.codesimplicity.com/post/open-source-community-simplified/
Thanks Steve.
One issue it raises is the difficulties c
Great article, thank you Steve!
Le mercredi 02 février 2011 à 13:31 +, Michael Foord a écrit :
> On 02/02/2011 13:25, Steve Holden wrote:
> > I imagine many of you will have seen this, but it's worth over-posting to
> > make sure everyone gets to see it who is interested.
> >
> > http://www.
On Feb 02, 2011, at 01:31 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>One issue it raises is the difficulties caused by freezing the trunk for
>releases. Instead they advocate creating the release branch at the point of
>the release candidate instead of freezing trunk. There are issues I
>currently *can't* work on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/02/11 17:47, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> This is one of the primary problems solved by a dvcs. You can *always* and
> *easily* work on new features, publish them for comment and review by others,
> make continual progress regardless of the release sta
Le mercredi 02 février 2011 à 18:26 +0100, Jesus Cea a écrit :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/02/11 17:47, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > This is one of the primary problems solved by a dvcs. You can *always* and
> > *easily* work on new features, publish them for comment an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/02/11 18:38, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> I guess the best workflow would be for the Release Manager to create a
>> clone, keeping the development repository open while the RM checks the
>> clone and "cherry pick" changesets from the development bran
Le mercredi 02 février 2011 à 19:21 +0100, Jesus Cea a écrit :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/02/11 18:38, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >> I guess the best workflow would be for the Release Manager to create a
> >> clone, keeping the development repository open while the RM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/02/11 19:28, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> The merge here is mostly automatic. In fact, if the RM doesn't change
>> his/her clone at all, the merge is "null", even if devel repository has
>> evolved a lot in the meantime.
>
> By merge I meant the che
Le mercredi 02 février 2011 à 19:39 +0100, Jesus Cea a écrit :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/02/11 19:28, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >> The merge here is mostly automatic. In fact, if the RM doesn't change
> >> his/her clone at all, the merge is "null", even if devel rep
On Feb 2, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le mercredi 02 février 2011 à 19:39 +0100, Jesus Cea a écrit :
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 02/02/11 19:28, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
The merge here is mostly automatic. In fact, if the RM doesn't change
hi
Le mercredi 02 février 2011 à 13:59 -0500, Steve Holden a écrit :
> On Feb 2, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> > Le mercredi 02 février 2011 à 19:39 +0100, Jesus Cea a écrit :
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> On 02/02/11 19:28, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/02/11 19:47, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> I don't think we are talking about branching after rc1 but after beta1,
> so that the feature branch can continue receive non-bugfix patches.
> That's quite many changesets to review.
A beta is like any other
On Feb 02, 2011, at 09:18 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
>On 02/02/11 19:47, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> I don't think we are talking about branching after rc1 but after beta1,
>> so that the feature branch can continue receive non-bugfix patches.
>> That's quite many changesets to review.
>
>A beta is like an
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>Just exactly the reverse of current workflow.
>
> And for good reason (IMO). It's often much less clear exactly how far back a
> specific patch should be committed when it's first being developed. It makes
> much more sense to me to fix a pro
On Feb 03, 2011, at 08:54 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>I suspect this problem with the preferred DVCS workflow is going to
>cut fairly heavily into the number of bug fixes applied to the
>maintenance branches.
I'd be really surprised if it *has* to be that way. Just how painful is it in
Mercurial to
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Feb 03, 2011, at 08:54 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>> I suspect this problem with the preferred DVCS workflow is going to
>> cut fairly heavily into the number of bug fixes applied to the
>> maintenance branches.
>
> I'd be really surprised if it *has* to be that way. Just
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Feb 03, 2011, at 08:54 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>>I suspect this problem with the preferred DVCS workflow is going to
>>cut fairly heavily into the number of bug fixes applied to the
>>maintenance branches.
>
> I'd be really surprised if it
On Feb 2, 2011, at 6:29 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Feb 03, 2011, at 08:54 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect this problem with the preferred DVCS workflow is going to
>>> cut fairly heavily into the number of bug fixes applied to th
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Steve Holden wrote:
> Call me unadventurous, but i'd quite like to see how we get on ding things
> the *right* way first.
Call me pessimistic, but I'm predicting that quite a few people
(including me) will continue their existing workflow, which is to work
primari
(I should note that I don't consider this a dealbreaker for the switch
to Mercurial - I'm just predicting a drop in maintenance patches for
an extended period of time after the switch)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
__
On 02/02/2011 23:35, Steve Holden wrote:
On Feb 2, 2011, at 6:29 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Feb 03, 2011, at 08:54 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I suspect this problem with the preferred DVCS workflow is going to
cut fairly heavily into the numb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/02/11 21:30, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> Just exactly the reverse of current workflow.
>
> And for good reason (IMO). It's often much less clear exactly how far back a
> specific patch should be committed when it's first being developed. It makes
>
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 02/02/2011 23:35, Steve Holden wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2011, at 6:29 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Feb 03, 2011, at 08:54 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I suspect this pr
Am 02.02.2011 17:47, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
> On Feb 02, 2011, at 01:31 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>
>>One issue it raises is the difficulties caused by freezing the trunk for
>>releases. Instead they advocate creating the release branch at the point of
>>the release candidate instead of freezing tru
25 matches
Mail list logo
