<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/18/2014 03:56 PM, Matthias Klose
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5303F345.9060108@ubuntu.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Am 19.02.2014 00:46, schrieb Larry Hastings:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 02/18/2014 03:38 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Am 17.02.2014 00:25, schrieb Larry Hastings:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And my local branch will remain private until 3.4.0 final ships!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">sorry, but this is so wrong. Is there *any* reason why to keep this branch
private?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yes. It ensures that nobody can check something into it against my wishes.
Also, in the event that I cherry-pick revisions out-of-order, it allows me to
rebase, making merging easier.
Is there *any* reason to make this branch public before 3.4.0 final?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
- Python is an open source project. Why do we need to hide
development for a month or more?
- Not even four eyes looking at the code seems to be odd. You
can make mistakes too.
This seems to be a social or a technical problem. I assume making this branch
available read-only would address your concerns? Does hg allow this? And if
not, why not create this branch in the upstream repository, and tell people not
to commit to it? Why shouldn't such a social restriction work? Seems to work
well for other projects.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
When you are release manager for Python, you may institute this
policy if you like. Right now, I have enough to do as it is.<br>
<br>
<br>
<i>/arry</i><br>
</body>
</html>