Re: Changes to the branching workflow

[Hartmut Goebel]

Am 12.02.21 um 21:49 schrieb Andreas Enge:
>  From what I understood of the discussion, I would also go with Tobias's and
> Efraim's suggestion: There is a core-updates branch that is constantly open
> and where people can push; this does not seem to leave a possibility of
> mistake, almost by definition. Then we can branch off core-updates-frozen,
> which is frozen :), except for cherry-picked bug fixing commits and merges
> from master. Once it is finished, it is merged into master and deleted.

This is what I understood, too.

> Technically speaking, this is the same as your suggestion, Leo, but it
> avoids the constant dance between core-updates, that disappears and
> reappears under the name core-updates-next, that disappears and reappears
> under the name core-updates, and so on.
It's even worse: When removing staging and core-updates at Savannah, 
this does not effect local copies. Thus one might push these branches to 
Savannah, which might lead to a lot of confusion and trouble.

--
Regards
Hartmut Goebel

| Hartmut Goebel          | h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com               |
| www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |