Is there a merge pending from 3.2 to 3.3?
http://hg.python.org/cpython/graph/83973?revcount=240 shows that last 3.2 change occurred 10 days ago and the branch has not been merged into 3.3 yet.
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b9b521efeba3?revcount=240
Is it pending intentionally or this should be merged and then we go forward with our business as usual.
-- Senthil
On Wed, 29 May 2013 06:11:51 -0700, Senthil Kumaran <senthil@uthcode.com> wrote:
Is there a merge pending from 3.2 to 3.3?
http://hg.python.org/cpython/graph/83973?revcount=240 shows that last 3.2 change occurred 10 days ago and the branch has not been merged into 3.3 yet.
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b9b521efeba3?revcount=240
Is it pending intentionally or this should be merged and then we go forward with our business as usual.
I asked about this on IRC and was told that 3.2 is now a standalone branch like 2.7. Security fixes will be applied by the release manager only, and Georg doesn't see any point in null merging the commits.
--David
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 29/05/13 16:41, R. David Murray wrote:
I asked about this on IRC and was told that 3.2 is now a standalone branch like 2.7. Security fixes will be applied by the release manager only, and Georg doesn't see any point in null merging the commits.
Could this be written somewhere?. For instance, how the release manager must be notified about a potential relevant changeset for his/her branch.
Jesús Cea Avión _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ Twitter: @jcea _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea@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 v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQCVAwUBUaZaBplgi5GaxT1NAQIS+QP/cd7KQ/RFaqK8U9AkMG9RuyoSHVJ9f00t VuQY+UdzkhomJQez1viEWmP+9c3MMFTHtQFB3mxmZHNHoALUH1ct5DYVjPghkA6h TsZSfZsCdvU0q9sPEjYXHOgF9LGtQCZgGzqlDl5zHzWTEFXxxLmritiSiZbvFhY/ cvAspNvbnBI= =iaDN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:41:58 +0200, Jesus Cea <jcea@jcea.es> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 29/05/13 16:41, R. David Murray wrote:
I asked about this on IRC and was told that 3.2 is now a standalone branch like 2.7. Security fixes will be applied by the release manager only, and Georg doesn't see any point in null merging the commits.
Could this be written somewhere?. For instance, how the release manager must be notified about a potential relevant changeset for his/her branch.
By making it a release blocker in the tracker. (Once it is public...I would imagine release managers have to be on the security mailing list...though I don't know that for a fact.)
I imagine there's something in the devguide about security branches, this info could be added there.
--David
On May 29, 2013, at 03:53 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
By making it a release blocker in the tracker. (Once it is public...I would imagine release managers have to be on the security mailing list...though I don't know that for a fact.)
Yes, all release managers for active branches are on the security mailing list. (Well, Larry wasn't but is now :).
-Barry
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:41 AM, R. David Murray <rdmurray@bitdance.com>wrote:
I asked about this on IRC and was told that 3.2 is now a standalone branch like 2.7. Security fixes will be applied by the release manager only, and Georg doesn't see any point in null merging the commits.
Well, there is no harm in merging 3.2 to 3.3. I think, 3.1 remains merged to 3.2 even if 3.1 is under security only mode.
It will be our practice that we do not port bug fixes to 3.2. This can be mentioned in the Misc/README. But when it will be a security fix, it will go through 3.2->3.3->default and having them merged may be a good idea.
-- Senthil
On 05/29/2013 10:27 PM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:41 AM, R. David Murray <rdmurray@bitdance.com <mailto:rdmurray@bitdance.com>> wrote:
I asked about this on IRC and was told that 3.2 is now a standalone branch like 2.7. Security fixes will be applied by the release manager only, and Georg doesn't see any point in null merging the commits.Well, there is no harm in merging 3.2 to 3.3. I think, 3.1 remains merged to 3.2 even if 3.1 is under security only mode.
It will be our practice that we do not port bug fixes to 3.2. This can be mentioned in the Misc/README. But when it will be a security fix, it will go through 3.2->3.3->default and having them merged may be a good idea.
No, security fixes will be cherry-picked back to the 3.2 branch, which is easier in the case of only few standalone commits.
Georg
participants (5)
-
Barry Warsaw -
Georg Brandl -
Jesus Cea -
R. David Murray -
Senthil Kumaran