-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 13.05.15 um 09:59 schrieb Larry Hastings:
When you say branch testing, you mean running the buildbots
against it? Right now the UI for doing that is pretty clunky.
Kicking off a build against a server-side clone (iirc) requires
clicking
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
What do you think? My votes are as follows:
Workflow 0: -0.5
Workflow 1: +1
Workflow 2: +0.5
Please cast your votes,
Workflow 0: -0
Workflow 1: +1
Workflow 2: +0
--Berker
On 05/12/2015 05:19 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Workflow 0: -0
Workflow 1: +1
Workflow 2: +0
That's taking into account the clarification that the buildbots will
be set up to track the 3.5.x branch after the beta is forked, and that
Larry will also push the 3.5rcX repo to hg.python.org
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:05 PM Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
[SNIP]
What do you think? My votes are as follows:
Workflow 0: -0.5
Workflow 1: +1
Workflow 2: +0.5
Please cast your votes,
Workflow 0: -0
Workflow 1: +1
Workflow 2: +0
On May 12, 2015, at 10:04, Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
Workflow 1
==
When I ship beta 1, we create the 3.5 branch. trunk become 3.6.
When I ship rc 1, the 3.5 branch becomes 3.5.1. I maintain a publically
visible repo on bitbucket for 3.5.0, and we use bitbucket
On 05/12/2015 10:23 AM, Ned Deily wrote:
One possible issue with Workflow 1 is that there would need to be an additional set of
buildbots (for 3.5, in addition to the existing 3.x (AKA trunk), 3.4, and 2.7
ones) for the period from beta 1 until at least 3.5.0 is released and, ideally, until
On May 12, 2015, at 10:38, Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
On 05/12/2015 10:23 AM, Ned Deily wrote:
One possible issue with Workflow 1 is that there would need to be an
additional set of buildbots (for 3.5, in addition to the existing 3.x (AKA
trunk), 3.4, and 2.7 ones) for the
On May 12, 2015, at 10:38 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
It doesn't. Workflows 0 and 2 mean no public development of 3.6 until after
3.5.0 final ships, as per tradition.
I still think it's a good idea to focus primarily on 3.5 while it's in the
beta/rc period, but if you want to allow for landings
On 05/12/2015 11:18 AM, Jesus Cea wrote:
Larry, could you comment about the impact in the buildbots?. I suppose
option #1 could allows us to test both 3.5 and 3.6 changes. Would you
confirm this?
Workflow #1 gets us automatic buildbot testing for the 3.5 branch (betas
and 3.5.1) and trunk
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
BTW, this workload was exacerbated by my foolish desire to keep the revision
DAG nice and clean. So I was actually starting over from scratch and
redoing all the cherry-picking every couple of days, just so I could get
On 05/12/2015 05:11 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
Couldn't you just keep this as a branch that you then keep rebasing
(without unlinking the original branch)? It doesn't seem like
something that needs a one-off script, to me.
Probably. It's water under the bridge now--that all happened last
On 13 May 2015 03:47, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:05 PM Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
[SNIP]
What do you think? My votes are as follows:
Workflow 0: -0.5
Workflow 1: +1
Workflow 2: +0.5
Please cast your votes,
Workflow 0: -0
On 05/12/2015 11:21 AM, Ned Deily wrote:
I like the idea of experimentally trying the push workflow but, if we are all
doing our jobs right, there should be very few changes going in after rc1 so
most committers won't need to push anything to the 3.5.0rc repo and, if for
some reason they
13 matches
Mail list logo
