On Sun, 2011-05-29 at 11:09 -0700, John LeMoyne Castle wrote:
The fixes in this area seem to be done and applied only in 3.4 rc2. From
looking in other areas of work on rc2, I think I am seeing the same patching
pattern where the rc is ahead of master. And AFAIK they are all about to
roll back to master. This leaves me with a bit of a quandary: Do I switch
to 3.4 rc branch because that's where the action is? Or do I patch my
version of master so I can work there? Or do I make a request through the
list for patching back to origin/master? Or should I just wait for the
merge? I know that I often make things more difficult than they really are,
but I am at a loss as to which is best/recommended way to proceed here and
now.
...
The current divergence leaves the master behind the rc branch in
various ways/areas which feels odd to me and appears to create extra
work for 'somebody', i.e. everyone.
Yes, fixing just the stable branch and leaving it up to petr to merge
the changes into master at some undetermined future stage creates this
problem where there are windows of time where master doesn't have fixes
in it that stable has, and its unknown when exactly they get into it.
Another argument for fixing in master and cherry-picking back to stable.
Personally, I think I'd still recommend working on master if possible
and make changes against that rather than compound the complications.
C.
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.