Message178983
One thing that occurred to me is that it is often or usually not sufficient to go from 2.7 to 3.2 and on forward because applying a patch made against the default branch loses information if first applied to an earlier branch. The given workflow assumes no loss of information and so should probably note this constraint.
I usually craft my patch against the default branch. If applying to 2.7 or 3.2, etc. loses information (which has been more often the case for me), then instead of merging I null-merge and reapply the original patch. Should the recommended workflow cover this possibility? |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2013-01-03 20:03:35 | chris.jerdonek | set | recipients:
+ chris.jerdonek, terry.reedy, ncoghlan, pitrou, ezio.melotti, eric.araujo, sandro.tosi, tshepang |
2013-01-03 20:03:35 | chris.jerdonek | set | messageid: <1357243415.51.0.806143516887.issue14468@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2013-01-03 20:03:35 | chris.jerdonek | link | issue14468 messages |
2013-01-03 20:03:35 | chris.jerdonek | create | |
|