[Python-Dev] Status of 3.2 in Hg repository?

Brett Cannon brett at python.org
Wed Aug 21 21:26:42 CEST 2013

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Tim Peters <tim.peters at gmail.com> wrote:

> [Tim, wondering why the 3.2 branch isn't "inactive"]
> >> ...
> >> So let's try a different question ;-)  Would anyone _object_ to
> >> completing the process described in the docs:  merge 3.2 into 3.3,
> >> then merge 3.3 into default?  I'd be happy to do that.  I'd throw away
> >> all the merge changes except for adding the v3,2.5 tag to .hgtags.
> >>
> >> The only active branches remaining would be `default` and 2.7, which
> >> is what I expected when I started this ;-)
> [Brett Cannon]
> > While I would think Georg can object if he wants, I see no reason to help
> > visibly shutter the 3.2 branch by doing null merges. It isn't like it
> makes
> > using hg harder or the history harder to read.
> Well, why do we _ever_ do a null merge?  Then why don't the reasons
> apply in this case?

After reading that sentence I realize there is a key "not" missing: "I see
no reason NOT to help visibly shutter the 3.2. branch ...". IOW I say do
the null merge. Sorry about that.

> What happened here doesn't match the documented workflow - so one or
> the other should be changed.  It has proved tedious to find out why
> this exception exists, and the only reason I've found so far amounts
> to "the RM didn't want to bother -- and the only record of that is
> someone's memory of an IRC chat".
> As mentioned before, if a security hole is found in 3.2 and gets
> repaired there, the poor soul who fixes 3.2 will have all the same
> questions when they try to forward-merge the fix to 3.3 and default.
> Because the merge wasn't done when 3.2.5 was released, they'll have a
> pile of files show up in their merge attempt that have nothing to do
> with their fix.  Not only the release artifacts, but also a critical
> fix Antoine applied to ssl.py a week after the 3.2.5 release.  It
> turns out that one was already applied to later branches, but I know
> that only because Antoine said so here.
> Do the "null merge", and none of those questions will arise.  And,
> indeed, that's _why_ we want to do null merges (when applicable) in
> general - right?  So that future merges become much easier.
> BTW, it's not quite a null-merge.  The v3.2.5 release tag doesn't
> currently exist in the 3.3 or default .hgtags files.  So long as 3.2
> has a topological head, people on the 3.3 and default branches won't
> notice (unless they look directly at .hgtags - they can still use
> "v3.2.5" in hg commands successfully), but that's mighty obscure ;-)

Yes it is. =)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20130821/3c31739c/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list