[Tracker-discuss] [issue428] Patch generator and dependent feature branches
Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de added the comment: So what do you propose should roundup do here? I propose that the current behavior is actually correct, and that mismatches with user expectations should be dealt with by education. For the patch generation to work in the expected manner, you could create one additional branch: - default - pep380pure - pep380full - default - get_opinfo - pep380full You then submit the pep380pure branch for review, and pep380full for testing. Alternatively, you could just do your pep380 changes on the default branch of a dedicated pep-380 clone; the patch generation can very well compare a clone's default branch with cpython's default branch. ___ PSF Meta Tracker metatrac...@psf.upfronthosting.co.za http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue428 ___ ___ Tracker-discuss mailing list Tracker-discuss@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-discuss
[Tracker-discuss] [issue428] Patch generator and dependent feature branches
New submission from Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com: The diff generator seems to get confused when the most recent merge with default was via a different branch: http://bugs.python.org/issue11682 The pep380 branch in my BitBucket sandbox depends on the new feature in the get_opinfo branch, so the merge flow is currently: default-get_opinfo-pep380 (I haven't closely examined the patch I just generated, but it still didn't look right on an initial glance) -- messages: 2312 nosy: loewis, ncoghlan priority: bug status: unread title: Patch generator and dependent feature branches ___ PSF Meta Tracker metatrac...@psf.upfronthosting.co.za http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue428 ___ ___ Tracker-discuss mailing list Tracker-discuss@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-discuss
