[Python-Dev] We should be using a tool for code reviews
barry at python.org
Thu Sep 30 16:27:55 CEST 2010
The torrential rains are causing havoc with my internet, so apologies for
replying out of sequence.
On Sep 30, 2010, at 07:17 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>Sorry for following up to myself, but this typo might be very
>Stephen J. Turnbull writes:
> > Barry Warsaw writes:
> > > You can have "co-located" branches which essentially switch
> > > in-place, so if a branch is changing some .c files, you won't
> > > have to rebuild the whole world just to try out a patch.
> > In Mercurial these are called "named branches", and they are
> > repo-local (by which I mean they must be part of the DAG). Named
> > branches used to have some inconvenient aspects relevant to
> > standalone
> > branches (they could be fairly confusing to other users if pushed
> > before being merge to mainline).
> > It's not obvious to me that Mercurial style named branches would
> > work well here ... it would take a little thought to design an
> > appropriate workflow, anyway.
I should note that I don't particularly like colocated/named branches. I
personally much prefer separate directories for each feature or bug I'm
working on. It helps me keep track of what I'm doing. I have a fast machine
so recompiling all of Python is no big deal.
I do like having the choice of being able to colocate or not, based on my own
workflow preferences. But I suppose with Mercurial I can just have multiple
copies of the same branch in different directories, and just start out with
"hg update -C foo"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Python-Dev