[python-committers] [PSF-Members] Code Simplicity » Open Source Community, Simplified

[Barry Warsaw]

On Feb 04, 2011, at 05:25 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:

>On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 16:49, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On the other hand, if *any* forward port naturally picks up all the
>> missed forward ports, then the Mercurial perspective starts to make
>> more sense (especially if the merge is able to exploit the DAG in
>> order to make fewer mistakes).
>
>That's exactly the idea of the Mercurial way. You type hg merge
><branch> and it will merge everything from the other branch that
>hasn't been merged yet (where both "blocking", in svnmerge
>terminology, and merging count as having been merged).

Doesn't that mean that the person doing the forward port will potentially have
to review a lot more code than the fix they specifically want to make?

IOW, if I apply a patch to 3.1 and forget to forward port it to 3.2 and the
trunk, then you also apply a patch to 3.1 and *do* the forward port, you could
end up with conflicts resulting from my merge.  That change might or might not
make sense to you, but in a way, you shouldn't even have to worry about it
because it interrupts the work you're doing on your patch.

What if my fix for 3.1 isn't applicable to 3.2 or the trunk?

Wouldn't it be better for you to have to only deal with your change, and then
admonish me for not completing my patch by making sure it is correctly
committed to all branches in which it applies?

-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-committers/attachments/20110204/0dbefe95/attachment.pgp>