[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > > Are you absolutely sure you have used "svn copy"? The logs don't show a > svn copy. Oh, no. I cop

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Are you absolutely sure you have used "svn copy"? The logs don't show a svn copy. __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ _

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Changes by Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file9857/unnamed __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ ___ Python-bug

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Changes by Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file9856/unnamed __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ ___ Python-bug

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > > I think I'll follow a different path here. I may end up with > > svn rm Misc/ACKS > svn copy ../tr

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: I think I'll follow a different path here. I may end up with svn rm Misc/ACKS svn copy ../trunk/Misc/ACKS Misc/ It should make future merges easier. __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > > For the record > > You don't have to merge changes from 2.6 to 3.0 manually. In fact you > mustn't

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: For the record You don't have to merge changes from 2.6 to 3.0 manually. In fact you mustn't unless you explicitly block the revision with svnmerge.py. In general you submit a change to 2.6 and it gets merged into 3.0 later. __

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Commited in r61913 and r61914. -- resolution: -> fixed status: open -> closed __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ __

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Yes, please sync the ACKS files again. -- assignee: tiran -> benjamin.peterson __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ ___

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Since the ACKS have changed since I did this merge, shall I remerge and commit the changes to both branches? __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Thanks! :) -- assignee: -> tiran nosy: +tiran priority: -> normal type: -> feature request __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

Changes by Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file9732/merge_acks.py __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ ___ Python

[issue2390] Merge 2.6 ACKS with 3.0 ACKS

New submission from Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Due to blocked merges etc. I expect that some names appearing in the 2.6 ACKS file aren't in the 3.0 ACKS file. And possible the other way around where backports are involved. I like this file to be as inclusive as possible (hey, my dad