On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: >> Let's say I'm working on a fairly substantial feature that may take >> weeks to complete. My way of working is to explore different >> approaches until I'm happy. I like to make checkpoints while I'm >> exploring so that I can easily backtrack from experiments. I'm not >> pushing any of this to the central repo; I'm just using a local repo. >> Over a few weeks this can easily lead to 100+ commits. Occasionally I >> push patches to Rietveld for review. When my reviewer and me are happy >> we want to push my work to the core repo. But do you really want my >> 100 commits (many of which represent dead ends) in the core repo? Many >> of them probably have checkin messages that make no sense to anyone. >> >> I know I would be sorely tempted to use hg export + hg import (and >> extensive testing after the latter of course) so that the approved >> changes can land with a single thud in the core repo. But maybe I'm a >> dinosaur? > > I don't think so. That line of reasoning is why one of the first > things I did after the transition was complete was to create a > personal sandbox repository on hg.python.org (using the server side > clone feature in the web interface). Any long term work will be done > on feature branches there (e.g. that's where the LHS precedence work > currently lives), with the "main" repository used only for applying > completed patches.
Ah. I just discovered http://docs.python.org/devguide/committing.html#long-term-development-of-features which explains how to do this (it came up in the other thread :-). So my use case is perfectly covered. Great! -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ 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
