Nick Coghlan wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I believe that's difficult when you previously merged from the trunk to
the py3k branch - the merged change to the svnmerge related properties
on the root directory gets in the way when svnmerge attempts to update
them on the maintenance branch.
That's
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> I believe that's difficult when you previously merged from the trunk to
>> the py3k branch - the merged change to the svnmerge related properties
>> on the root directory gets in the way when svnmerge attempts to update
>> them on the maintenance branch.
>>
>> That's what
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:10 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> Yeah, that's why I asked. I tried what Martin suggested with r67698 by
>> just saying I'd resolved the conflict, which added the single revision
>> I was merging from to the svnmerge-integrated property. It didn't add
>> the two origina
> Yeah, that's why I asked. I tried what Martin suggested with r67698 by
> just saying I'd resolved the conflict, which added the single revision
> I was merging from to the svnmerge-integrated property. It didn't add
> the two original revisions.
Can you elaborate? What are the "two original rev
> I believe that's difficult when you previously merged from the trunk to
> the py3k branch - the merged change to the svnmerge related properties
> on the root directory gets in the way when svnmerge attempts to update
> them on the maintenance branch.
>
> That's what started this thread, and so
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:18 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>>> Was there ever a conclusion to this? I need to merge the patches
>>> associated with issue 4597 from trunk to all the maintenance branches,
>>> and I'd like to avoid messi
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>> Was there ever a conclusion to this? I need to merge the patches
>> associated with issue 4597 from trunk to all the maintenance branches,
>> and I'd like to avoid messing anyone up if possible. If I don't hear
>> back, I'll plan to svnmerge direct
Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> Was there ever a conclusion to this? I need to merge the patches
> associated with issue 4597 from trunk to all the maintenance branches,
> and I'd like to avoid messing anyone up if possible. If I don't hear
> back, I'll plan to svnmerge directly from trunk to each of the
Was there ever a conclusion to this? I need to merge the patches
associated with issue 4597 from trunk to all the maintenance branches,
and I'd like to avoid messing anyone up if possible. If I don't hear
back, I'll plan to svnmerge directly from trunk to each of the
branches, and then block my mer
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> For now it looks like we might have to maintain 3.0 manually, with
> svnmerge only helping out for trunk->2.6 and trunk->py3k
Does it make the bookkeeping horrible if you merge from trunk straight
to 3.0, and then blocked svnmerged changes from propagating?
-jJ
On Dec 5, 2008, at 5:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I think we're discovering the real reasons why people generally prefer
to use a DVCS when trying to manage multiple branches :P
Really? I don't. The issue has nothing to do with someone
maintaining private change sets, or wanting to do develop
Nick Coghlan wrote:
I think we're discovering the real reasons why people generally prefer
to use a DVCS when trying to manage multiple branches :P
For now it looks like we might have to maintain 3.0 manually, with
svnmerge only helping out for trunk->2.6 and trunk->py3k...
The problem seems t
Fred Drake wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Mark Dickinson wrote:
>> Did I mess up somewhere, or does svnmerge not work on
>> a revision that was itself the result of an svnmerge?
>
> I ran into this yesterday as well with my patch to the cgi module. The
> work-around was to revert the change
On Dec 5, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Mark Dickinson wrote:
Did I mess up somewhere, or does svnmerge not work on
a revision that was itself the result of an svnmerge?
I ran into this yesterday as well with my patch to the cgi module.
The work-around was to revert the change to that property and edit
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:20, Mark Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Flow diagram
>>
>>
>> trunk ---> release26-maint
>> \-> py3k ---> release30-maint
>>
>
> I'm running into problems m
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Flow diagram
>
>
> trunk ---> release26-maint
> \-> py3k ---> release30-maint
>
I'm running into problems making this work, with a trivial change:
I committed r67590 (which adds a single ass
>> trunk ---> release26-maint
>> \-> py3k ---> release30-maint
>>
>>
>
> As a side-note: this merging flow means that bugfix and feature commits
> may never be merged from trunk to py3k in one svnmerge batch. Else,
> they cannot be separated when merging from py3k to 30-maint.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 13:21, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Benjamin Peterson schrieb:
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Eric Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Christian Heimes wrote:
Several people have asked about the patch and merge flow. Now that Python
3.0 is ou
Christian Heimes schrieb:
> Several people have asked about the patch and merge flow. Now that
> Python 3.0 is out it's a bit more complicated.
>
> Flow diagram
>
>
> trunk ---> release26-maint
> \-> py3k ---> release30-maint
>
>
> Patches for all versions of Py
Benjamin Peterson schrieb:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Eric Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Christian Heimes wrote:
>>>
>>> Several people have asked about the patch and merge flow. Now that Python
>>> 3.0 is out it's a bit more complicated.
>>>
>>> Flow diagram
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Dec 4, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
Apologies if this has been discussed before. I looked but didn't see
anything.
Probably has, just 'cause everything has been discussed before.
Given that at least 99% of the changes for the trunk will not get
merged into release26-maint, doesn't
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Eric Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christian Heimes wrote:
>>
>> Several people have asked about the patch and merge flow. Now that Python
>> 3.0 is out it's a bit more complicated.
>>
>> Flow diagram
>>
>>
>> trunk ---> release26-maint
>> \-
Christian Heimes wrote:
Several people have asked about the patch and merge flow. Now that
Python 3.0 is out it's a bit more complicated.
Flow diagram
trunk ---> release26-maint
\-> py3k ---> release30-maint
Patches for all versions of Python should land in the
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Jeremy Hylton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Several people have asked about the patch and merge flow. Now that Python
>> 3.0 is out it's a bit more complicated.
>>
>> Flow diagram
>>
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Several people have asked about the patch and merge flow. Now that Python
> 3.0 is out it's a bit more complicated.
>
> Flow diagram
>
>
> trunk ---> release26-maint
> \-> py3k ---> release3
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Mark Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Patches for all versions of Python should land in the trunk. They are then
>> merged into release26-maint and py3k branches. Changes for Python
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Patches for all versions of Python should land in the trunk. They are then
> merged into release26-maint and py3k branches. Changes for Python 3.0 are
> merged via the py3k branch.
Thanks, Christian!
Questions:
(1) If
Several people have asked about the patch and merge flow. Now that
Python 3.0 is out it's a bit more complicated.
Flow diagram
trunk ---> release26-maint
\-> py3k ---> release30-maint
Patches for all versions of Python should land in the trunk. They are
then me
28 matches
Mail list logo
