Hi,
FYI the faulthandler and tracemalloc were both added in a single
commit, while they added a lot of new code and modified multiple
files.
The development of faulthandler and tracemalloc started as third party
projects on PyPI.
I almost rewrote tracemalloc from scratch while its PEP was
people prefer pushing feature repos or one
massive patch?
On 2 April 2015 at 04:09, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
I like one massive patch, myself. :)
Aye, I'm also in the squash for the clean history approach.
___
python-committers mailing list
On Apr 02, 2015, at 12:06 PM, Jason R. Coombs wrote:
The way I see it, a squash of history or massive patch file loses history. It
loses details about the thought process of the implementer. It masks mistakes
and obscures motivations. It also masks decisions made in the merge
operation, further
Where I come from we always squash. More detailed history is preserved in
the code review tool (which keeps a snapshot every time you bounce it back
to the reviewer). Looking at my own sub-commits when I'm working on a
complex feature or bug fix, they are often checkpoints with no particular
On Thu, 02 Apr 2015 09:31:08 -0700, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Where I come from we always squash. More detailed history is preserved in
the code review tool (which keeps a snapshot every time you bounce it back
to the reviewer). Looking at my own sub-commits when I'm working on a
On 2 April 2015 at 04:09, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
I like one massive patch, myself. :)
Aye, I'm also in the squash for the clean history approach (FWIW,
making this less of an either/or question is one of the benefits
Gerrit offers over other code review systems, since you can
If you choose to merge, I would prefer that you rebase your changes
before to avoid multiple merges. IMO the best to avoid merges at all
:-)
Did someone review your large change?
Victor
2015-04-01 18:09 GMT+02:00 Brett Cannon bcan...@gmail.com:
The implementation for PEP 488 is basically done
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 12:09, Brett Cannon wrote:
The implementation for PEP 488 is basically done (sans Windows installer
stuff). I did the work in a features repo at
https://hg.python.org/features/pep-488/ . Once I have addressed reviewer
comments at http://bugs.python.org/issue23731 ,
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:56 PM Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com
wrote:
If you choose to merge, I would prefer that you rebase your changes
before to avoid multiple merges. IMO the best to avoid merges at all
:-)
It's sounding like one massive patch is the best option for people.
I like one massive patch, myself. :)
--
~Ethan~
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:38 PM Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 12:09, Brett Cannon wrote:
The implementation for PEP 488 is basically done (sans Windows installer
stuff). I did the work in a features repo at
https://hg.python.org/features/pep-488/ .
11 matches
Mail list logo
