[Python-Dev] We should be using a tool for code reviews

[Barry Warsaw]

The torrential rains are causing havoc with my internet, so apologies for
replying out of sequence.

On Sep 30, 2010, at 07:17 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

>Sorry for following up to myself, but this typo might be very
>confusing:
>
>Stephen J. Turnbull writes:
> > Barry Warsaw writes:
> > 
> >  > You can have "co-located" branches[1] which essentially switch
> >  > in-place, so if a branch is changing some .c files, you won't
> >  > have to rebuild the whole world just to try out a patch.
> > 
> > In Mercurial these are called "named branches", and they are
> > repo-local (by which I mean they must be part of the DAG).  Named
> > branches used to have some inconvenient aspects relevant to
> > standalone
>
>s/relevant/relative/
>
> > branches (they could be fairly confusing to other users if pushed
> > before being merge to mainline).
> > 
> > It's not obvious to me that Mercurial style named branches would
> > work well here ... it would take a little thought to design an
> > appropriate workflow, anyway.

I should note that I don't particularly like colocated/named branches.  I
personally much prefer separate directories for each feature or bug I'm
working on.  It helps me keep track of what I'm doing.  I have a fast machine
so recompiling all of Python is no big deal.

I do like having the choice of being able to colocate or not, based on my own
workflow preferences.  But I suppose with Mercurial I can just have multiple
copies of the same branch in different directories, and just start out with
"hg update -C foo"

-Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20100930/2834f724/attachment.pgp>