Le vendredi 24 mai 2013 à 14:23 -0400, Brett Cannon a écrit :
You'll have to copy stuff by hand, though, if you don't want to rely on the merge machinery. So we have two possible file layouts:
- (current) a single Misc/NEWS is merged from branch to branch. Pro: hg merge copies the text for you. Con: hg merge sometimes screws up and you have to clean up a large conflict.
But hg won't let you simply revert;
hg rev -r <branch name> Misc/NEWS
- a dedicated Misc/NEWS-x.y per major version. Pro: no merge conflicts ever. Con: you have to copy the message by hand when merging a bug fix to the upper branch. Con: it's easy to forget to copy the message (hg won't yell if you don't do it), so people *will* forget (and it's annoying grunt work for those who notice it).
So the question becomes do we really need to copy every entry? Beyond simply being redundant, it's annoying when doing merges because of the constant conflicts. I would argue that in bugfix releases we could say in the issue whether it stops there or propagates into the next feature release (e.g. [regression] or [bugfix]). Then it becomes habit to always specify that (and maybe even have a Mercurial extension that detects when neither is specified and throws a fit).
Then Misc/NEWS* become harder to read for third parties, since reading Misc/NEWS-3.4 won't tell you everything that happened in 3.4.
Either way the status quo makes me not want to fix small doc typos like a missing parenthesis since this is enough of a hassle to not make it worth it.
Do you mean Mics/NEWS doc typos?
The major con with the current scheme *might* be solved by a dedicated hg extension, but someone needs to have enough free time and passion to try and write it :-)
Wouldn't an extension that does the copying be easier than resolving the conflict?
Sure, it would be. Like Nick said: if you are motivated enough to write the extension... :-)
Regards
Antoine.