-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 28/03/13 08:55, Georg Brandl wrote:
> with 3.2.4 being the last regular 3.2 maintenance release and the
> rc out of the door, the 3.2 branch should only be committed to for
> security releases. So please don't commit anything there anymore.
> To he
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:41:39 +0100, Jesus Cea wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 28/03/13 08:55, Georg Brandl wrote:
> > with 3.2.4 being the last regular 3.2 maintenance release and the
> > rc out of the door, the 3.2 branch should only be committed to for
> > securi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 30/03/13 15:15, R. David Murray wrote:
> This is the first time we've been in the situation of having a
> security-only branch in Mercurial (other than 2.7, which is its own
> head). So I don't believe we have articulated a procedure yet.
I am ask
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 30/03/13 16:10, Jesus Cea wrote:
> Something simple would be for the hook to refuse any commit in
> that branch UNLESS it is coming from the maintainer.
BTW, are the hooks available anywhere. I am interested in the "create
patch" hook and the "be s
On 03/30/2013 04:10 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
> On 30/03/13 15:15, R. David Murray wrote:
>> This is the first time we've been in the situation of having a
>> security-only branch in Mercurial (other than 2.7, which is its own
>> head). So I don't believe we have articulated a procedure yet.
>
> I am a
On 03/30/2013 04:20 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
> On 30/03/13 16:10, Jesus Cea wrote:
>> Something simple would be for the hook to refuse any commit in
>> that branch UNLESS it is coming from the maintainer.
>
> BTW, are the hooks available anywhere. I am interested in the "create
> patch" hook and the "
In article <20130330141534.44893250...@webabinitio.net>,
"R. David Murray" wrote:
> This is the first time we've been in the situation of having a
> security-only branch in Mercurial (other than 2.7, which is its own head).
3.1?
--
Ned Deily,
n...@acm.org
___
Le samedi 30 mars 2013 à 10:13 -0700, Ned Deily a écrit :
> In article <20130330141534.44893250...@webabinitio.net>,
> "R. David Murray" wrote:
> > This is the first time we've been in the situation of having a
> > security-only branch in Mercurial (other than 2.7, which is its own head).
>
> 3.
On 03/30/2013 06:14 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le samedi 30 mars 2013 à 10:13 -0700, Ned Deily a écrit :
>> In article <20130330141534.44893250...@webabinitio.net>,
>> "R. David Murray" wrote:
>> > This is the first time we've been in the situation of having a
>> > security-only branch in Mercur
On 3/30/2013 1:14 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
I also don't know what "which is its own head" is supposed to mean :-)
We don't merge 2.7 into default, leaving 2.7 as a second head.
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://m
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:13:13 -0700, Ned Deily wrote:
> In article <20130330141534.44893250...@webabinitio.net>,
> "R. David Murray" wrote:
> > This is the first time we've been in the situation of having a
> > security-only branch in Mercurial (other than 2.7, which is its own head).
>
> 3.1?
On Mar 30, 2013, at 06:14 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>Or 2.6?
Right, but no one should really be committing to 2.6 without at least checking
with me first. FWIW, I still merge from 2.6 to 2.7 if appropriate, but given
that there's only one more 2.6 release planned at all, this is a very rare
occu
12 matches
Mail list logo