Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index


Hi,

On Mon, 30 May 2011 13:42:19 -0500
Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com>
wrote:

after that, cherry pick, and never ever merge one way or the other.
(iow the 3.X branch diverge from that point on)

What could still be done though is to do throw-away-merges: Merge them
without pushing, just to see that nothing is missing on master. If
something is missing, cherrypick it. Patch frequency is lower after
X.X.0 anyway.

wrt 'log readability'. what is really confusing is a mix of cherry
pick _and_ merge.

While you can limit that, you would never get rid of it completely.
Somebody doing a change on master and recognizing it to be critical
will not change branches and do the change on the release branch and
then merge it back to master, esp. given the intentionally open nature
of master and that even before a X.X.0 release there are reviews needed
at some point. You can get the release branch 'clean', but not the
master branch.
 
Best,

Bjoern

-- 
https://launchpad.net/~bjoern-michaelsen



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.