Mailman 3 3.2 -> 3.3 merge pending? - python-committers

3.2 -> 3.3 merge pending?

Senthil Kumaran

29 May 2013 29 May '13

1:11 p.m.

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

Attachments:

attachment.htm (text/html — 719 bytes)

Show replies by date

R. David Murray

29 May 29 May

2:41 p.m.

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

Jesus Cea

7:41 p.m.

-----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-----

R. David Murray

7:53 p.m.

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

Barry Warsaw

8:40 p.m.

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

Senthil Kumaran

8:27 p.m.

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:41 AM, R. David Murray rdmurray@bitdance.comwrote:

...

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

Georg Brandl

10 Jun 10 Jun

8:12 a.m.

On 05/29/2013 10:27 PM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:

...

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:41 AM, R. David Murray 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

3971

Age (days ago)

3983

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

6 comments

5 participants

participants (5)

Barry Warsaw
Georg Brandl
Jesus Cea
R. David Murray
Senthil Kumaran

3.2 -> 3.3 merge pending?

Senthil Kumaran

R. David Murray

Jesus Cea

R. David Murray

Barry Warsaw

Senthil Kumaran

Georg Brandl

tags

participants (5)