[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Since the ACKS have changed since I did this merge, shall I remerge and commit the changes to both branches? __ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue2390 __

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Yes, please sync the ACKS files again. -- assignee: tiran - benjamin.peterson __ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue2390 __

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Commited in r61913 and r61914. -- resolution: - fixed status: open - closed __ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue2390 __

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: For the record You don't have to merge changes from 2.6 to 3.0 manually. In fact you mustn't unless you explicitly block the revision with svnmerge.py. In general you submit a change to 2.6 and it gets merged into 3.0 later.

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: For the record You don't have to merge changes from 2.6 to 3.0 manually. In fact you mustn't unless you

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: I think I'll follow a different path here. I may end up with svn rm Misc/ACKS svn copy ../trunk/Misc/ACKS Misc/ It should make future merges easier. __ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: I think I'll follow a different path here. I may end up with svn rm Misc/ACKS svn copy

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Changes by Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file9856/unnamed __ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue2390 __ ___

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Changes by Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file9857/unnamed __ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue2390 __ ___

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Are you absolutely sure you have used svn copy? The logs don't show a svn copy. __ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue2390 __

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Are you absolutely sure you have used svn copy? The logs don't show a svn copy. Oh, no. I copied with cp,

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Thanks! :) -- assignee: - tiran nosy: +tiran priority: - normal type: - feature request __ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue2390 __

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

New submission from Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Due to blocked merges etc. I expect that some names appearing in the 2.6 ACKS file aren't in the 3.0 ACKS file. And possible the other way around where backports are involved. I like this file to be as inclusive as possible (hey, my dad

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Changes by Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file9732/merge_acks.py __ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue2390 __ ___