[Python-Dev] We should be using a tool for code reviews (original) (raw)

Barry Warsaw barry at python.org
Thu Sep 30 16:27:55 CEST 2010

The torrential rains are causing havoc with my internet, so apologies for replying out of sequence.

On Sep 30, 2010, at 07:17 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

Sorry for following up to myself, but this typo might be very confusing:

Stephen J. Turnbull writes: > Barry Warsaw writes: > > > You can have "co-located" branches[1] which essentially switch > > in-place, so if a branch is changing some .c files, you won't > > have to rebuild the whole world just to try out a patch. > > In Mercurial these are called "named branches", and they are > repo-local (by which I mean they must be part of the DAG). Named > branches used to have some inconvenient aspects relevant to > standalone s/relevant/relative/ > branches (they could be fairly confusing to other users if pushed > before being merge to mainline). > > It's not obvious to me that Mercurial style named branches would > work well here ... it would take a little thought to design an > appropriate workflow, anyway.

I should note that I don't particularly like colocated/named branches. I personally much prefer separate directories for each feature or bug I'm working on. It helps me keep track of what I'm doing. I have a fast machine so recompiling all of Python is no big deal.

I do like having the choice of being able to colocate or not, based on my own workflow preferences. But I suppose with Mercurial I can just have multiple copies of the same branch in different directories, and just start out with "hg update -C foo"

-Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20100930/2834f724/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list