From martin at v.loewis.de Sun Mar 1 00:11:02 2009 From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiB2LiBMw7Z3aXMi?=) Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 00:11:02 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Survey about DVCSs compared to svn In-Reply-To: References: <49A5D0C1.3040404@egenix.com> <00df01c997a1$b5191ae0$1f4b50a0$@com.au> <49A64ABD.1030108@v.loewis.de> <85AC071A-78DE-4FAC-ADE7-FA78BB737B48@python.org> <49A6A6BD.4010308@egenix.com> <1235659804.7109.34.camel@fsol> <49A6B100.40304@egenix.com> <1235662601.7109.48.camel@fsol> <49A6BEF8.4030201@egenix.com> <1235668878.7109.82.camel@fsol> Message-ID: <49A9C486.3060400@v.loewis.de> > Frankly, there are very few people who routinely (like Benjamin) or even only > sometimes (like me) merge larger amounts of stuff between our four branches. > While that's no surprise, given how clumsy svnmerge makes it, others shouldn't > just dismiss the merging problem with "we have svnmerge". That's why I keep arguing that the committers making the original commits should also merge their changes, individually, into the respective branches. That way - commits become separate, and reverting them becomes possible - the load is shared across all committers Regards, Martin From solipsis at pitrou.net Sun Mar 1 00:18:59 2009 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 00:18:59 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Survey about DVCSs compared to svn In-Reply-To: <49A9C486.3060400@v.loewis.de> References: <49A5D0C1.3040404@egenix.com> <00df01c997a1$b5191ae0$1f4b50a0$@com.au> <49A64ABD.1030108@v.loewis.de> <85AC071A-78DE-4FAC-ADE7-FA78BB737B48@python.org> <49A6A6BD.4010308@egenix.com> <1235659804.7109.34.camel@fsol> <49A6B100.40304@egenix.com> <1235662601.7109.48.camel@fsol> <49A6BEF8.4030201@egenix.com> <1235668878.7109.82.camel@fsol> <49A9C486.3060400@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: <1235863139.6644.23.camel@fsol> Le dimanche 01 mars 2009 ? 00:11 +0100, "Martin v. L?wis" a ?crit : > That's why I keep arguing that the committers making the original > commits should also merge their changes, individually, into the > respective branches. That way > - commits become separate, and reverting them becomes possible > - the load is shared across all committers It doesn't really make svnmerge less annoying, though. From martin at v.loewis.de Sun Mar 1 00:22:45 2009 From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiB2LiBMw7Z3aXMi?=) Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 00:22:45 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Survey about DVCSs compared to svn In-Reply-To: <1235863139.6644.23.camel@fsol> References: <49A5D0C1.3040404@egenix.com> <00df01c997a1$b5191ae0$1f4b50a0$@com.au> <49A64ABD.1030108@v.loewis.de> <85AC071A-78DE-4FAC-ADE7-FA78BB737B48@python.org> <49A6A6BD.4010308@egenix.com> <1235659804.7109.34.camel@fsol> <49A6B100.40304@egenix.com> <1235662601.7109.48.camel@fsol> <49A6BEF8.4030201@egenix.com> <1235668878.7109.82.camel@fsol> <49A9C486.3060400@v.loewis.de> <1235863139.6644.23.camel@fsol> Message-ID: <49A9C745.3070004@v.loewis.de> Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Le dimanche 01 mars 2009 ? 00:11 +0100, "Martin v. L?wis" a ?crit : >> That's why I keep arguing that the committers making the original >> commits should also merge their changes, individually, into the >> respective branches. That way >> - commits become separate, and reverting them becomes possible >> - the load is shared across all committers > > It doesn't really make svnmerge less annoying, though. Depends on what you are annoyed by. If it is that you get tons of conflicts when you run it, and that it takes forever, and that it combines many small changes into a single one - those will be gone with that change in policy. Regards, Martin From lists at cheimes.de Sun Mar 1 01:14:29 2009 From: lists at cheimes.de (Christian Heimes) Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 01:14:29 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Survey about DVCSs compared to svn In-Reply-To: <49A9BDFD.5070607@gmail.com> References: <49A5D0C1.3040404@egenix.com> <00df01c997a1$b5191ae0$1f4b50a0$@com.au> <49A64ABD.1030108@v.loewis.de> <85AC071A-78DE-4FAC-ADE7-FA78BB737B48@python.org> <49A6A6BD.4010308@egenix.com> <1235659804.7109.34.camel@fsol> <49A6B100.40304@egenix.com> <1235662601.7109.48.camel@fsol> <49A6BEF8.4030201@egenix.com> <1235668878.7109.82.camel@fsol> <49A9BDFD.5070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: <49A9D365.6060107@cheimes.de> Nick Coghlan schrieb: > Georg Brandl wrote: >> It doesn't only *feel* slow, it *is* slow. And not only compared to merging >> with a DVCS, which doesn't need network. Half a minute to merge a three-line >> change is not productive. > > Don't forget that *blocking* a revision with svnmerge seems to take > nearly as long as actually merging it does (the only part that seems to > save time is the fact that you don't need to build and/or run the test > suite afterwards). Even worse, svnmerge makes concurrent merging impossible. You get a conflict every time two people are merging the same time. In the Python project we don't see the issue often but at work I could hear a frustrated scream at least once a day. We've started a "manual merge lock" by yelling "merge" from one developer room to the other. Totally annoying, though. Christian From ncoghlan at gmail.com Sun Mar 1 13:15:21 2009 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 22:15:21 +1000 Subject: [python-committers] Survey about DVCSs compared to svn In-Reply-To: <49A9C745.3070004@v.loewis.de> References: <49A5D0C1.3040404@egenix.com> <00df01c997a1$b5191ae0$1f4b50a0$@com.au> <49A64ABD.1030108@v.loewis.de> <85AC071A-78DE-4FAC-ADE7-FA78BB737B48@python.org> <49A6A6BD.4010308@egenix.com> <1235659804.7109.34.camel@fsol> <49A6B100.40304@egenix.com> <1235662601.7109.48.camel@fsol> <49A6BEF8.4030201@egenix.com> <1235668878.7109.82.camel@fsol> <49A9C486.3060400@v.loewis.de> <1235863139.6644.23.camel@fsol> <49A9C745.3070004@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: <49AA7C59.80906@gmail.com> Martin v. L?wis wrote: > and that it takes forever Not sure about that - I *do* port my own changes, and while the merges are quicker than a full recompile or running the test suite, they're still far, far, slower than applying an equivalent patch or doing an svn update. Given that "svnmerge block" is pretty slow as well, my suspicion is that the property calculations and the auto-generation of the commit message are less than lightning fast. (I don't how much that could be improved by speeding up the underlying svn metadata retrieval - wasn't the server updated to svn 1.5 fairly recently?) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- From benjamin at python.org Sun Mar 1 15:50:31 2009 From: benjamin at python.org (Benjamin Peterson) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 08:50:31 -0600 Subject: [python-committers] Survey about DVCSs compared to svn In-Reply-To: <49AA7C59.80906@gmail.com> References: <49A6B100.40304@egenix.com> <1235662601.7109.48.camel@fsol> <49A6BEF8.4030201@egenix.com> <1235668878.7109.82.camel@fsol> <49A9C486.3060400@v.loewis.de> <1235863139.6644.23.camel@fsol> <49A9C745.3070004@v.loewis.de> <49AA7C59.80906@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1afaf6160903010650taaa5e1ayd3545929cd86cbf0@mail.gmail.com> 2009/3/1 Nick Coghlan : > Martin v. L?wis wrote: >> and that it takes forever > > Not sure about that - I *do* port my own changes, and while the merges > are quicker than a full recompile or running the test suite, they're > still far, far, slower than applying an equivalent patch or doing an svn > update. > > Given that "svnmerge block" is pretty slow as well, my suspicion is that > the property calculations and the auto-generation of the commit message > are less than lightning fast. (I don't how much that could be improved > by speeding up the underlying svn metadata retrieval - wasn't the server > updated to svn 1.5 fairly recently?) It seems to me most of the time is spent in fetching the log for the commit message, and that's something Subversion is notoriously slow at. (You can see what commands svnmerge.py is using with the "-s" flag.) -- Regards, Benjamin From barry at python.org Sun Mar 1 18:32:40 2009 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 12:32:40 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] Survey about DVCSs compared to svn In-Reply-To: References: <1235662601.7109.48.camel@fsol> <49A6BEF8.4030201@egenix.com> <368a5cd50902270259o14dfe257hf595a2860020e674@mail.gmail.com> <015d01c99926$62b229a0$28167ce0$@com.au> <49A8657E.2050308@v.loewis.de> <49A87A29.7050109@tummy.com> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 27, 2009, at 7:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > - Mercurial: IMO we can't go wrong with this. I've tried it a bit for > small projects, and it's very easy to learn for a SVN user. I've > talked to Bryan O'Sullivan, and I'm impressed by the customer list, > which includes Mozilla and Sun. Except of course for MySQL (own by Sun), which uses Bazaar. :) > - Bazaar: Probably okay, but I'm lukewarm about it. It is also > apparently still slower than Hg. It is married to Launchpad whose UI > continues to confuse and frustrate me (e.g. why is the "report a bug" > link so much more prominent on the overview page than the "download" > link?). Bazaar isn't really dependent on Launchpad at all, although Launchpad is dependent on Bazaar. Two very different things. Although I'd love to explore your frustrations with LP at another time, I do think it's important to keep the two separate. Python won't be using any Launchpad services, so Launchpad's usability doesn't really matter. Bazaar has plugins to e.g. expose an lp: url scheme for branches and -- fixes, but I'm sure the same could be done for a py: scheme integrated with code.python.org and Roundup. > I also am a little worried that Canonical is a little too > eager to get us as a "high profile customer". I'm not quite sure where that's coming from. Canonical loves Python, uses it everywhere. We'd like to give back to Python, and would devote resources to making sure Bazaar meets the Python community's needs. > The good news is that > Bzr and Hg are so compatible that Bzr fans will be able to use Bzr > even if the master repository (probably on Benjamin's hard drive :-) > uses Hg. Hmm, I'm not sure what this is referring to. Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSarGuHEjvBPtnXfVAQKyZAP/d7YCFW1BfrWWMcImMSmI1UFZATe8RqNY GfRMjdK6cq0++unYDg7rKEfyuqcoisJxFbDAyFrCsEtKjBhGXJzXlmPPUZcs9EwO iq7q7kaBcnbkXyRs1xuuSYHimiDa0FQRRcpCsVCPoHEasS9YbAzFJr46VxrnoeR0 RtTax/litNs= =6Tk2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From martin at v.loewis.de Sun Mar 1 21:08:07 2009 From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiB2LiBMw7Z3aXMi?=) Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 21:08:07 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Survey about DVCSs compared to svn In-Reply-To: <49AA7C59.80906@gmail.com> References: <49A5D0C1.3040404@egenix.com> <00df01c997a1$b5191ae0$1f4b50a0$@com.au> <49A64ABD.1030108@v.loewis.de> <85AC071A-78DE-4FAC-ADE7-FA78BB737B48@python.org> <49A6A6BD.4010308@egenix.com> <1235659804.7109.34.camel@fsol> <49A6B100.40304@egenix.com> <1235662601.7109.48.camel@fsol> <49A6BEF8.4030201@egenix.com> <1235668878.7109.82.camel@fsol> <49A9C486.3060400@v.loewis.de> <1235863139.6644.23.camel@fsol> <49A9C745.3070004@v.loewis.de> <49AA7C59.80906@gmail.com> Message-ID: <49AAEB27.6000002@v.loewis.de> > Martin v. L?wis wrote: >> and that it takes forever > > Not sure about that - I *do* port my own changes, and while the merges > are quicker than a full recompile or running the test suite, they're > still far, far, slower than applying an equivalent patch or doing an svn > update. I meant that as a relative qualification indeed (merging a single revision specified on the command line as opposed to merging all available versions). I just measured merging r70081, and it took 42s. > Given that "svnmerge block" is pretty slow as well, my suspicion is that > the property calculations and the auto-generation of the commit message > are less than lightning fast. (I don't how much that could be improved > by speeding up the underlying svn metadata retrieval - wasn't the server > updated to svn 1.5 fairly recently?) Indeed. However, I had not upgraded the repository itself. I did now "svnadmin upgrade", and "svn-populate-node-origins-index" on the projects repository. Unfortunately, the same merge operation now takes 2m42. So I reverted the format upgrade (I had made a tar file before). If anybody wants to experiment with that: help would be appreciated. Regards, Martin From solipsis at pitrou.net Wed Mar 4 12:22:49 2009 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:22:49 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] svnmerge In-Reply-To: <49AAEB27.6000002@v.loewis.de> References: <49A5D0C1.3040404@egenix.com> <00df01c997a1$b5191ae0$1f4b50a0$@com.au> <49A64ABD.1030108@v.loewis.de> <85AC071A-78DE-4FAC-ADE7-FA78BB737B48@python.org> <49A6A6BD.4010308@egenix.com> <1235659804.7109.34.camel@fsol> <49A6B100.40304@egenix.com> <1235662601.7109.48.camel@fsol> <49A6BEF8.4030201@egenix.com> <1235668878.7109.82.camel@fsol> <49A9C486.3060400@v.loewis.de> <1235863139.6644.23.camel@fsol> <49A9C745.3070004@v.loewis.de> <49AA7C59.80906@gmail.com> <49AAEB27.6000002@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: <1236165769.7938.2.camel@fsol> Le dimanche 01 mars 2009 ? 21:08 +0100, "Martin v. L?wis" a ?crit : > I meant that as a relative qualification indeed (merging a single > revision specified on the command line as opposed to merging all > available versions). > > I just measured merging r70081, and it took 42s. After the merge from io-c to py3k, where svnmerge seems to have "forgotten" a couple of changes which I have had to fix manually, I want to say that svnmerge has more than simply performance issues... ;-) Regards Antoine. From lists at cheimes.de Wed Mar 4 12:27:53 2009 From: lists at cheimes.de (Christian Heimes) Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:27:53 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] svnmerge In-Reply-To: <1236165769.7938.2.camel@fsol> References: <49A5D0C1.3040404@egenix.com> <00df01c997a1$b5191ae0$1f4b50a0$@com.au> <49A64ABD.1030108@v.loewis.de> <85AC071A-78DE-4FAC-ADE7-FA78BB737B48@python.org> <49A6A6BD.4010308@egenix.com> <1235659804.7109.34.camel@fsol> <49A6B100.40304@egenix.com> <1235662601.7109.48.camel@fsol> <49A6BEF8.4030201@egenix.com> <1235668878.7109.82.camel@fsol> <49A9C486.3060400@v.loewis.de> <1235863139.6644.23.camel@fsol> <49A9C745.3070004@v.loewis.de> <49AA7C59.80906@gmail.com> <49AAEB27.6000002@v.loewis.de> <1236165769.7938.2.camel@fsol> Message-ID: <49AE65B9.1010106@cheimes.de> Antoine Pitrou schrieb: > Le dimanche 01 mars 2009 ? 21:08 +0100, "Martin v. L?wis" a ?crit : >> I meant that as a relative qualification indeed (merging a single >> revision specified on the command line as opposed to merging all >> available versions). >> >> I just measured merging r70081, and it took 42s. > > After the merge from io-c to py3k, where svnmerge seems to have > "forgotten" a couple of changes which I have had to fix manually, I want > to say that svnmerge has more than simply performance issues... ;-) I ran into similar trouble during the merge of the long running math branch. After two failed attempts I decided to merge the changes manually. I couldn't figure out why svnmerge was failing because I hadn't had enough spare time. Christian From benjamin at python.org Sat Mar 7 17:13:40 2009 From: benjamin at python.org (Benjamin Peterson) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 10:13:40 -0600 Subject: [python-committers] doing 3.1a1; py3k frozen Message-ID: <1afaf6160903070813s1865a31bxf8fdd5e2c54db80e@mail.gmail.com> Please no checkins in branches/py3k until I give the word. Thanks. -- Regards, Benjamin From benjamin at python.org Sat Mar 7 19:54:18 2009 From: benjamin at python.org (Benjamin Peterson) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 12:54:18 -0600 Subject: [python-committers] py3k unfrozen Message-ID: <1afaf6160903071054oda99631p90df6599ba198378@mail.gmail.com> branches/py3k is now open for work on the second 3.1 alpha. -- Regards, Benjamin From jcea at jcea.es Tue Mar 10 15:16:17 2009 From: jcea at jcea.es (Jesus Cea) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:16:17 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Survey about DVCSs compared to svn In-Reply-To: <49A91176.6020106@gmail.com> References: <368a5cd50902271604u769083a7na8dc562ecb62025@mail.gmail.com> <00163630ee1dee73860463ef6d4d@google.com> <368a5cd50902272345y74fb1711g626ad471161bf10b@mail.gmail.com> <368a5cd50902272351l5293b4bck68151f0357ba9fdf@mail.gmail.com> <368a5cd50902280112n1b8a886bie0a9bf9744fb48ea@mail.gmail.com> <368a5cd50902280116u7052c604r2c007bc90c86d7ef@mail.gmail.com> <6a36e7290902280218k4e762439sdad31c4557aa788d@mail.gmail.com> <49A91176.6020106@gmail.com> Message-ID: <49B67631.4070701@jcea.es> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Nick Coghlan wrote: > We have a few of those (svn:externals) as well... Brett, another > question for your DVCS champions! Sun uses a Mercurial extension, Forest, to manage JDK. Mercurial forest: http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/ForestExtension And a proposal for the core Mercurial: http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/NestedRepositories - -- Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea at jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea at jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBSbZ2LJlgi5GaxT1NAQL0hQP/YE2zvORq+b7320CoSWmnHqolGE/zWtcC jGfqcaSq9J1FwCeDSCjbYDAZTxuAescyCB2IZJEZtHTRgsgNnKkyk0YUGN/wf+// hWUR/QXpU68K54PAXkX8oA8RkYmFtI0rFBxOTnYbPcIauSik87ImWesLPzyMFxc4 TEpENXfYqzg= =evgj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jcea at jcea.es Tue Mar 10 15:59:27 2009 From: jcea at jcea.es (Jesus Cea) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:59:27 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] help with svnmerge Message-ID: <49B6804F.4040602@jcea.es> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I committed r70197 to trunk a few days ago. Today I copied "svnmerge.py" in my 2.6 branch, and did an "init" and a "merge"... like it is said in the developer FAQ. I got a lot of conflicts and "old patches" merged. Overhelming. So... Can anybody please merge r70197 to 2.6 branch? Can somebody explain how to do a correct svnmerge and, possibly, update http://www.python.org/dev/faq/#how-do-i-merge-between-branches ? Sorry for this inconvenience. I promise to learn the lessons you teach me. PS: I know how to merge using pure SVN and Mercurial... O:-) - -- Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea at jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea at jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBSbaAR5lgi5GaxT1NAQKE1gP9E0b2e8lRwBouayLHuk9cDTrVOJo12Mad mZ/dDAzPo4I6dHXkns4PEt8/m2NhCvOFW0abt51bFLVoKUSomuPyxvT9hie/z2wq Ra/+czIRjdbwFrk6WeZW7kURIgBDA5OG35p/34LsnhVi/+3JNW42uQRRjusRYO3m iUtCCpOdDnw= =UpbJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From greg at krypto.org Tue Mar 10 17:51:53 2009 From: greg at krypto.org (Gregory P. Smith) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:51:53 -0700 Subject: [python-committers] help with svnmerge In-Reply-To: <49B6804F.4040602@jcea.es> References: <49B6804F.4040602@jcea.es> Message-ID: <52dc1c820903100951i25abb9d3ua48d7723a8d16988@mail.gmail.com> I think those instructions are for merging lots of things at once. What I've used when I'm merging a single revision is this: greg at pts/6.dealer/9:46AM% svn up ~/sandbox/python/release26-maint At revision 70301. greg at pts/6.dealer/9:47AM% python ../svnmerge.py merge -r70197 property 'svnmerge-integrated' deleted from '.'. property 'svnmerge-blocked' deleted from '.'. --- Merging r70197 into '.': U Doc/library/bsddb.rst property 'svnmerge-integrated' set on '.' property 'svnmerge-blocked' set on '.' greg at pts/6.dealer/9:49AM% ls *.txt ~/sandbox/python/release26-maint svnmerge-commit-message.txt Anyways, I just committed the above merge as r70302. On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Jesus Cea wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I committed r70197 to trunk a few days ago. Today I copied "svnmerge.py" > in my 2.6 branch, and did an "init" and a "merge"... like it is said in > the developer FAQ. I got a lot of conflicts and "old patches" merged. > Overhelming. > > So... > > Can anybody please merge r70197 to 2.6 branch? > > Can somebody explain how to do a correct svnmerge and, possibly, update > http://www.python.org/dev/faq/#how-do-i-merge-between-branches ? > > Sorry for this inconvenience. I promise to learn the lessons you teach me. > > PS: I know how to merge using pure SVN and Mercurial... O:-) > > - -- > Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ > jcea at jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ > jabber / xmpp:jcea at jabber.org _/_/ > _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ > . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ > "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ > "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ > "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iQCVAwUBSbaAR5lgi5GaxT1NAQKE1gP9E0b2e8lRwBouayLHuk9cDTrVOJo12Mad > mZ/dDAzPo4I6dHXkns4PEt8/m2NhCvOFW0abt51bFLVoKUSomuPyxvT9hie/z2wq > Ra/+czIRjdbwFrk6WeZW7kURIgBDA5OG35p/34LsnhVi/+3JNW42uQRRjusRYO3m > iUtCCpOdDnw= > =UpbJ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncoghlan at gmail.com Tue Mar 10 23:22:03 2009 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:22:03 +1000 Subject: [python-committers] help with svnmerge In-Reply-To: <52dc1c820903100951i25abb9d3ua48d7723a8d16988@mail.gmail.com> References: <49B6804F.4040602@jcea.es> <52dc1c820903100951i25abb9d3ua48d7723a8d16988@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49B6E80B.5080401@gmail.com> Gregory P. Smith wrote: > I think those instructions are for merging lots of things at once. That FAQ question is actually 3 questions in one: 1. How do I set up merge tracking for a new branch? (A: Use "svnmerge init") Since this has already been done for the maintenance branches, no need for anyone to do it again. 2. How do I merge all unmerged revisions from the base branch to the current branch? (A: Use "svnmerge merge"). Only a few developers will want to do this. 3. How do I merge a specific revision (or set of revisions) from the base branch to the current branch? (A: Use "svnmerge merge -r "). This is what most developers will use when porting a single change between branches. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- From eric at trueblade.com Tue Mar 10 23:54:02 2009 From: eric at trueblade.com (Eric Smith) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:54:02 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] help with svnmerge In-Reply-To: <52dc1c820903100951i25abb9d3ua48d7723a8d16988@mail.gmail.com> References: <49B6804F.4040602@jcea.es> <52dc1c820903100951i25abb9d3ua48d7723a8d16988@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49B6EF8A.4030703@trueblade.com> Gregory P. Smith wrote: > What I've used when I'm merging a single revision is this:
I think the more pressing question that needs documenting is: "Given that there are 4 active branches, in which order do I check things in and merge them?" Martin gave an answer to this on December 22, and I refer to it often. It's: --------8<---------------- Instead, you should commit it into trunk, and then run svnmerge.py three times, namely: - in a release26-maint checkout, run svnmerge.py -r svn commit -F svnmerge-commit-something-press-tab - in a py3k checkout, run svnmerge.py -r svn commit -F svnmerge-commit-something-press-tab - in a release30-maint check, then run svnmerge.py -r svn revert . svn commit -F svnmerge-commit-something-press-tab --------8<---------------- I think it was later corrected that the "svn revert" should be "svn resolved", if it's needed at all. But I'm not sure about that. As I recall, I've never needed that step. Eric. From martin at v.loewis.de Wed Mar 11 00:13:51 2009 From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:13:51 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] help with svnmerge In-Reply-To: <49B6EF8A.4030703@trueblade.com> References: <49B6804F.4040602@jcea.es> <52dc1c820903100951i25abb9d3ua48d7723a8d16988@mail.gmail.com> <49B6EF8A.4030703@trueblade.com> Message-ID: <49B6F42F.70703@v.loewis.de> > svnmerge.py -r > svn revert . > svn commit -F svnmerge-commit-something-press-tab > > --------8<---------------- > > I think it was later corrected that the "svn revert" should be "svn > resolved", if it's needed at all. But I'm not sure about that. As I > recall, I've never needed that step. It should be needed every time you merge into the 3.0 branch, and yes, it should be "resolved", not "revert". Regards, Martin From brett at python.org Wed Mar 11 00:35:10 2009 From: brett at python.org (Brett Cannon) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:35:10 -0700 Subject: [python-committers] help with svnmerge In-Reply-To: <49B6F42F.70703@v.loewis.de> References: <49B6804F.4040602@jcea.es> <52dc1c820903100951i25abb9d3ua48d7723a8d16988@mail.gmail.com> <49B6EF8A.4030703@trueblade.com> <49B6F42F.70703@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 16:13, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote: > > svnmerge.py -r > > svn revert . > > svn commit -F svnmerge-commit-something-press-tab > > > > --------8<---------------- > > > > I think it was later corrected that the "svn revert" should be "svn > > resolved", if it's needed at all. But I'm not sure about that. As I > > recall, I've never needed that step. > > It should be needed every time you merge into the 3.0 branch, and > yes, it should be "resolved", not "revert". I will add it to the FAQ right now. -Brett -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From solipsis at pitrou.net Fri Mar 13 20:28:51 2009 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:28:51 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Backporting to 3.0 Message-ID: <1236972531.6758.4.camel@fsol> Hello all, What is the expected future of the 3.0 branch? Will a 3.0.2 release be done one day? Is there any point in backporting bug fixes there? Regards Antoine. From barry at python.org Fri Mar 13 20:30:32 2009 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:30:32 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] Backporting to 3.0 In-Reply-To: <1236972531.6758.4.camel@fsol> References: <1236972531.6758.4.camel@fsol> Message-ID: <750FB319-E3F8-4E15-8443-8FA46ABE5AEA@python.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 13, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > What is the expected future of the 3.0 branch? Will a 3.0.2 release be > done one day? Is there any point in backporting bug fixes there? I plan to stick with the policy and release a last 3.0.x after 3.1 is released. If there's need for a 3.0.2 in the meantime, then I can do that too. So I do think relevant bug fixes should be back ported. Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSbq0WHEjvBPtnXfVAQLCGQP9E7TkTF4bGf94j/cGCi6tddaboU+qzFyx ERaLi2J1Qal8PFk27W3Z9OQ3YdIUlJ6T7HoDRhypiQ8cOYfeua4iPaSo2PFVTVuK c4M1apVEDad1tmT3UmD1CRLaESSo1WW8hBq4iT+wIe3iWR0pt3QfBW8SRxNUXou3 1wiijobAoWY= =SNFt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----