Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> How about we just continue to improve both branches, doing forward or
> backports as appropriate. No need to develop a policy of crippling
> one branch on the theory that it will make the other seem more
> attractive.
>
> Besides, if 2.7 and 3.2 get released within a fe
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> I don't think that the policy has been articulated in exactly that
> way, and it certainly wasn't implemented for 2.6/3.0. 2.6 was released
> with features that had not been released in any 3.x release, just
> because 3.x had not been released at all.
I don't think the ide
How about we just continue to improve both branches, doing forward or backports
as appropriate. No need to develop a policy of crippling one branch on the
theory that it will make the other seem more attractive.
Besides, if 2.7 and 3.2 get released within a few months of each other, any
inver
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 at 21:55, Michael Foord wrote:
R. David Murray wrote:
[snip...]
> By the policy you propose, we could not have released 2.6 in October
> 2008, which we really really wanted to because Apple wanted us to.
I don't think the 2.6 release date is relevant to this discussion,
Terry Reedy wrote:
[snip...]
I don't think that's a novel idea though - I'm pretty sure it was
suggested (and met with general approval) when the idea of a short
release cycle for 3.1 was first brought up.
I presume because it has been stated before.
In addition to the question above, I am a
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I have thought that 2.7 was now to come out instead with 3.2 and would
include backported 3.2 new features. Others expect 2.7 to come out soon
after 3.1 and to only contain new 3.1 features. So Guido or someone,
please clarify: is 2.7 to be the counte
2009/6/7 Michael Foord :
> R. David Murray wrote:
>>
>> [snip...]
>>>
>>> By the policy you propose, we could not have released 2.6 in October
>>> 2008, which we really really wanted to because Apple wanted us to.
>>
>> I don't think the 2.6 release date is relevant to this discussion,
>> since 3.x
R. David Murray wrote:
[snip...]
By the policy you propose, we could not have released 2.6 in October
2008, which we really really wanted to because Apple wanted us to.
I don't think the 2.6 release date is relevant to this discussion,
since 3.x hadn't been released at all at that point. What
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 at 21:21, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
I'm neutral on time frames, but I think that it _should_ be a policy
that new features only get released to the 2.x branch after they have
been released in the 3.x branch. Or, rather, I though that policy was
implicit in the idea that we were
On Jun 7, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Assuming the policy "release new features for 2.x only after they got
released for 3.x". I don't think such a policy actually exists.
The policy, as I remember it, can be summed up: don't innovate new
features in the 2.x branch. Meaning, a
> I'm neutral on time frames, but I think that it _should_ be a policy
> that new features only get released to the 2.x branch after they have
> been released in the 3.x branch. Or, rather, I though that policy was
> implicit in the idea that we weren't _automatically_ backporting features,
> spec
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 at 18:55, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
B. "Yes."
This answer means that the 3.1 to 3.2 development cycle will need to
be truncated by roughly 6 months so that 3.2 can be released before 2.7
with any new features of interest. The 3.2 and 2.7 releases should then
occur within a fe
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>> I have thought that 2.7 was now to come out instead with 3.2 and would
>>> include backported 3.2 new features. Others expect 2.7 to come out soon
>>> after 3.1 and to only contain new 3.1 features. So Guido or someone,
>>> please clarify: is 2.7 t
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> I have thought that 2.7 was now to come out instead with 3.2 and would
>> include backported 3.2 new features. Others expect 2.7 to come out soon
>> after 3.1 and to only contain new 3.1 features. So Guido or someone,
>> please clarify: is 2.7 to be the counterpart of 3.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> "Martin v. Löwis" writes:
>
> > I'm not sure that the concept of a "trunk" branch still exists in
> > Mercurial. PEP 385 apparently doesn't have resolved the branch strategy
> > for Mercurial yet. With cloned branches,
"Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> I'm not sure that the concept of a "trunk" branch still exists in
> Mercurial. PEP 385 apparently doesn't have resolved the branch strategy
> for Mercurial yet. With cloned branches, I think the concept of a
> "trunk" becomes irrelevant.
"Trunk" exists as a technic
> I have thought that 2.7 was now to come out instead with 3.2 and would
> include backported 3.2 new features. Others expect 2.7 to come out soon
> after 3.1 and to only contain new 3.1 features. So Guido or someone,
> please clarify: is 2.7 to be the counterpart of 3.1 or 3.2?
Neither, nor. 2.
17 matches
Mail list logo
