[Tim, wondering why the 3.2 branch isn't "inactive"]
>> ...
>> What is gained by _not_ merging here?  I don't see it.

[Antoine Pitrou]
> Perhaps Georg doesn't like merges? ;-)
> I suppose what's gained is "one less command to type".

So let's try a different question ;-)  Would anyone _object_ to
completing the process described in the docs:  merge 3.2 into 3.3,
then merge 3.3 into default?  I'd be happy to do that.  I'd throw away
all the merge changes except for adding the v3,2.5 tag to .hgtags.

The only active branches remaining would be `default` and 2.7, which
is what I expected when I started this ;-)

While I would think Georg can object if he wants, I see no reason to help visibly shutter the 3.2 branch by doing null merges. It isn't like it makes using hg harder or the history harder to read. 
">

(original) (raw)




On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Tim Peters <tim.peters@gmail.com> wrote:
\[Tim, wondering why the 3.2 branch isn't "inactive"\]
\>> ...
>> What is gained by \_not\_ merging here? I don't see it.

\[Antoine Pitrou\]
> Perhaps Georg doesn't like merges? ;-)
\> I suppose what's gained is "one less command to type".

So let's try a different question ;-) Would anyone \_object\_ to
completing the process described in the docs: merge 3.2 into 3.3,
then merge 3.3 into default? I'd be happy to do that. I'd throw away
all the merge changes except for adding the v3,2.5 tag to .hgtags.

The only active branches remaining would be \`default\` and 2.7, which
is what I expected when I started this ;-)

While I would think Georg can object if he wants, I see no reason to help visibly shutter the 3.2 branch by doing null merges. It isn't like it makes using hg harder or the history harder to read.