Re: [PATCHES] Two small improvements to HACKING

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:23:47PM CEST:
> On Thursday 19 August 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Are you aware that merging fix-foo in maint, branch-1.11, and
> > master is equivalent to merging fix-foo in maint, then merging
> > maint in branch-1.11 and master (under the assumption that prior
> > to the fix, maint was an ancestor of branch-1.11 and master)?
> Yes.

Good.  :-)

> Moreover, an avarage git user with pushing right should know what you
> explained above, i.e. that...
>   > merging fix-foo in maint, branch-1.11, and
>   > master is equivalent to merging fix-foo in maint, then merging
>   > maint in branch-1.11 and master (under the assumption that prior
>   > to the fix, maint was an ancestor of branch-1.11 and master)?
> ... while the usefulness of the bug-fixing-through-branching policy you
> are using for automake might not be obvious (it wasn't for me until your
> explanation in a previous mail).
> 
> In light of these considerations, is my wording acceptable?

Yes, sure.

[ reordered ]
> P.S. When you said ...
> > If no, this paragraph should be rewritten, if yes, then how come you
> > didn't just merge maint into branch-1.11 and master?  ;-)
> ... were you asking why I didn't do that in my last push?

Yep.

> Well,
> because I find an explicit merge of the bug-fixing branch in all the
> affected branches clearer: it's like saying "Hey, I'm doing this
> merge to fix a bug!", while this is unclear in a merge of e.g. maint.

Good argument.

Please complain if you feel I'm giving you too much of a hard time.  My
impression is that it improves your patches and your argumentation.  :-)

Cheers, and thanks for persisting,
Ralf