On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Eric Smith wrote:

On 8/19/2010 7:55 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:

...

Thanks for the replies.

The dev FAQ is clear about regular use, it tells about the svnmerge-commit-message too, and people in #python-dev have told me that the merge order is py3k>  3.1, py3k>  2.7. My problem here is that I committed r84190 in 3.1 manually, but it should have been an svnmerge of r84187. So my question is: Do I have to svnmerge block -r84187 in 3.1?

Yes, you should do that.

...

...

And I use "svnmerge block -r revision" for branches where the commit should not be applied, don't forget to do this.

Oh, this has to be done for every commit? I have for example fixed typos in 3.x that don’t apply to 2.7, so I have to block them?

I don't know that this matters, since I don't think anyone's doing mass merges in this direction. I tend to do it just for my own bookkeeping purposes, though.

I do it every time myself, AFAIK it reduces the workload of people that are making sure all pending patches were applied. Not doing a block right away for me means: I need to merge it to that branch, but I can't do it now (lack of time, or imminent release)

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Eric Smith wrote:

...

Oh, this has to be done for every commit? I have for example fixed typos in 3.x that don’t apply to 2.7, so I have to block them?

I don't know that this matters, since I don't think anyone's doing mass merges in this direction. I tend to do it just for my own bookkeeping purposes, though.

This is probably a self-fulfilling prophecy. I know my last few feature commits, I've moved on to the next feature I wanted to implement rather than blocking the feature from 2.7 and 3.1. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan@gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

Am 19.08.2010 15:32, schrieb Nick Coghlan:

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:

...

Thanks for the replies.

The dev FAQ is clear about regular use, it tells about the svnmerge-commit-message too, and people in #python-dev have told me that the merge order is py3k > 3.1, py3k > 2.7. My problem here is that I committed r84190 in 3.1 manually, but it should have been an svnmerge of r84187. So my question is: Do I have to svnmerge block -r84187 in 3.1?

Better to do "svnmerge merge --record-only -r84187".

(I have another request for the dev FAQ - could we get an FAQ entry about how to update the FAQ itself? I usually just post here in the hopes that someone will fix it, but we should be able to do better than that. People have told me many times in the past how it actually gets updated, but it never sticks in my memory).

Once we switch to SVN, the FAQ will get moved to its own repository and be independent of the rest of the python.org website. Until then, you need pydotorg commit privs and update it like other pages on python.org Georg -- Thus spake the Lord: Thou shalt indent with four spaces. No more, no less. Four shall be the number of spaces thou shalt indent, and the number of thy indenting shall be four. Eight shalt thou not indent, nor either indent thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Tabs are right out.

2010/8/19 Georg Brandl :

Am 19.08.2010 15:32, schrieb Nick Coghlan:

...

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:

...

Thanks for the replies.

The dev FAQ is clear about regular use, it tells about the svnmerge-commit-message too, and people in #python-dev have told me that the merge order is py3k > 3.1, py3k > 2.7. My problem here is that I committed r84190 in 3.1 manually, but it should have been an svnmerge of r84187. So my question is: Do I have to svnmerge block -r84187 in 3.1?

Better to do "svnmerge merge --record-only -r84187".

(I have another request for the dev FAQ - could we get an FAQ entry about how to update the FAQ itself? I usually just post here in the hopes that someone will fix it, but we should be able to do better than that. People have told me many times in the past how it actually gets updated, but it never sticks in my memory).

Once we switch to SVN

Oh, good. I was really starting to hate CVS. -- Regards, Benjamin

Thanks Eric for the reply and Nick for mentioning --record-only, this was what I needed. Tarek: I find the bug tracker simpler than svnmerge to keep track of merges to be done. Of course, when there is no report, as for the typo fixes I made, this doesn’t help. Oh well. I’m going to do some Mercurial merges to feel better. In case the PSU wants me to svnmerge block/record the few changes I committed without using svnmerge afterward, tell them I won’t be far. Regards, and thanks for helpi