[core-workflow] Questions about the proposed workflows

[Barry Warsaw]

On Dec 01, 2015, at 03:53 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:

>(A bigger question might be if merging a patch across three branches will
>become any easier. At this point I'm reluctant to accept small asyncio PRs
>because I have to merge then into 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6. But I expect that this
>would be a matter of git command line tricks regardless of the hosting
>platform.)

I think that's true, but I'd love to be wrong about that.  In Mailman 3 we
have the maintenance branch and the devel branch.  Usually bugs get fixed on
devel first, and then I have to manually cherry-pick those comments from the
master branch to the release-3.0 branch.  This usually goes pretty smoothly
except for (dum dum DUMM....) the NEWS file.  I have to resolve those
conflicts manually (Emacs' smerge-mode to the rescue), commit that, and then
push to the origin.

I've found it's usually easier to rebase the original commit onto master so
there's just one commit that needs to be cherry-picked, and I find it's
usually safer to do all this on a topic branch, get that all nice and clean,
and then fast-forward merge onto the maintenance branch.  Git branches are
cheap so this works well - you just don't want to push those temporary topic
branches.

>in the past we've had such arrangements, and IIRC typically over the years
>the hosting company has lost interest. We're better off being hosted on the
>default terms by a thriving company than by a company that's just scraping
>by offering us an incentive.

There are more than a few assumptions in that paragraph that make it difficult
to respond to <wink>.

Cheers,
-Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/attachments/20151201/f4be89c8/attachment.sig>