[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] Upstream synchronization documentation

From: Rasmus Pank Roulund
Subject: Re: [O] Upstream synchronization documentation
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 19:31:00 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Kyle Meyer <address@hidden> writes:

>> Whereas in your text I think it is the other way round, isn't it?
>> (I.e. the Emacs branch is more stable, and you are talking about
>> porting a fix that someone has made in that branch to the Org master.)
>> So perhaps 'forward port' would be clearer?
> I suspect that Org's maint (where the Emacs changes land) is generally
> more stable than the Org in Emacs's master, but, yes, Emacs's version is
> the older version.  (Well, with v9.0.9 just synced the versions match,
> but maint still has quite a few more commits.)
> Since before I took over "backporting" changes from the Emacs repo, it's
> been referred to as this.  Although I agree it isn't great word choice,
> I'd prefer that we remain consistent so that, for example, "git log -i
> --grep=backport" remains informative.
> But if people think using "backport" is too confusing, I'm OK switching
> to another term.  Of "forward port" and "propagate" (suggested in this
> thread by Eric), I prefer "propagate"---or maybe just "port", though
> grepping for that might lead to too many false positives.  And if we
> stick with "backport", it still might be a good idea to clarify in
> README_maintainer that we're abusing the term.

So at least I’m not crazy for "coming up with" it backporting!

So I will keep calling it "backporting" but explain that it is more like
propagating changes from the Emacs repository (back) to the Org


Dung makes an excellent fertilizer

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]