<div class="gmail_quote">On 2 July 2010 09:08, Tim Delaney <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:timothy.c.delaney@gmail.com">timothy.c.delaney@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On 2 July 2010 08:07, Barry Warsaw <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:barry@python.org" target="_blank">barry@python.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div></div><div><br></div></div>
Other than that, while I sometimes review patches in email, I do not think<br>
patches in a tracker are the best way to manage these. A dvcs's biggest<br>
strength is in branches, so we should use those as much as possible.<br><font color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote><div><br></div></div>
<div>7. Merged default branch was pushed to the central repo, which triggered a continuous build.</div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div>Clarification here - I mean that a committer would merge it to default, then pull it into the main python repo - there would be one that anyone could push changes to, and those named branches would then be cherry-picked to be merged and pulled into the main repo by committers. Or something along those lines.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Tim Delaney</div></div>