On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 02:54:26 +0900, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <step...@xemacs.org> wrote: > I don't see why the tracking issue is any different than it would be > for svn. If you're actually merging, either a dummy merge (what git
Martin already said most of what I would have in response to your post. > For cherypicking, I haven't thought carefully about this, but ISTM > that "hg export | hg import; merge post-patch /dev/null source" should > give the traditional conflict markers. This will require a bit of > care to get the files to merge right, since there will in general be > multiple files that fail to patch, but the names can be fished out of > the .rej file(s). Getting the source files will also be mildly > tricky, since they live in a different branch, and aren't available in > your local repository. It will also require a bit of care to get the > commit log etc right. But I don't think it's that hard, conceptually. > > Of course it's preferable to get this feature in hg itself, but I > don't think we need to wait for hg/maintain a fork. The fact that I really haven't a clue what you are talking about here means that I for one am not likely to be helping develop that tool, at least not any time soon. So I hope there are people who understand this stuff who will make it work for the rest of us. > > Well, considering that the transition is "soon", the fact that it > > is a SMOP is a concern :) > > Sure, but in this crowd, I wouldn't waste a good worry on this > particular SMOP. Talent is one thing, available time, as you pointed out about yourself, is a different matter. I'm confident we can make this all work. The only question is when. -- R. David Murray www.bitdance.com _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
