[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Mon, 09 May 2011 20:52:10 +0200
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:188.8.131.52) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
On 04/29/2011 07:15 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> This might work, but fails to meet the major criterion of the proposed
> branching scheme. The proposal is to make 2.14 stable.
Yes, that's why my proposal was to apply every BUGFIX to 2.14 first, not
every patch. :-)
(Of course, by "bugfix", I mean "fix for a bug in 2.14". Bugs in dev
only should get fixed in dev only.)
> Actually, I think your final comment is backwards. Every patch is
> applicable to dev, but only some are applicable to 2.14.
Backwards for patches in general; not for bugfixes.
The idea is that bugfixes get applied to 2.14 first and then merged into
dev (minimal cherrypicking here); while other patches (new features
etc.) get applied to dev and never go near 2.14.
dev still gets everything, 2.14 gets just what it needs, and in the best
case scenario, you should _never have to cherrypick_, just merge from
2.14 to dev every time there is a bugfix.
Is the idea clearer now?
By the way, sorry for not following up on this sooner. Busy time in the
Thanks & best wishes,
|[Prev in Thread]
||[Next in Thread]|
- Re: branching,
Joseph Wakeling <=