Re: proper handling of release/unstable

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Patrick McCarty <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 2010-01-17, Graham Percival wrote:
>> I'm a bit confused by some of the changes to the git commands for
>> release/unstable.
>
> It's a trade-off.

Ah, ok.  I now agree that the "merge" is the better option.

> [1] In case of a "fast-forward" merge, where release/unstable is
> identical to master except for the commits at the tip, a merge commit
> will not be created.

This makes "merge" look more appealing; I'd expect this to apply most
of the time.

Cheers,
- Graham