Author barry
Recipients Tom.N, barry, benjamin.peterson, gvanrossum, orsenthil, pitrou, python-dev
Date 2011-05-20.22:37:01
SpamBayes Score 1.15747e-08
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <20110520183657.4d30068a@neurotica.wooz.org>
In-reply-to <1305929253.93.0.872686109322.issue11442@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
On May 20, 2011, at 10:07 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:

>
>Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> added the comment:
>
>Let me confirm that. Since it is a security patch the entire point of it is
>to be placed in the release.

Cool, I've ported it over to svn.

>I don't want to question the reasons for doing the release from svn instead
>of from hg, but I do want to emphasize that the hg branch ought to be
>considered the master which svn should track as closely as possible.  The
>only reason to not port a patch to the svn branch would be if it was
>submitted to the hg branch in contradiction with some policy (e.g. a
>non-security fix to a branch that should only receive security fixes), and
>then it should probably be rolled back in the hg branch (and the decision to
>do so should be very visible on python-dev).

I'm okay with that.  Right now I can't push my reconciled hg repo though
because line ending changes were committed to various files in hg but not
svn.  I don't think they're appropriate frankly, but rolling them back causes
hg push to fail.

Antoine suggested whitelisting those files in .hgeol, which I'll investigate.
History
Date User Action Args
2011-05-20 22:37:04barrysetrecipients: + barry, gvanrossum, orsenthil, pitrou, benjamin.peterson, Tom.N, python-dev
2011-05-20 22:37:02barrylinkissue11442 messages
2011-05-20 22:37:01barrycreate