Am 21.08.2013 21:26, schrieb Brett Cannon: > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Tim Peters <tim.pet...@gmail.com > <mailto:tim.pet...@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.
FWIW I have no real objections, I just don't see the gain. Georg _______________________________________________ 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
