From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Richard Subject: Re: Merge branch 'maint' Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:16:25 +0200 Message-ID: <874miv98ti.fsf@members.fsf.org> References: <87twr37il4.fsf@gmail.com> <87y4gfpkjy.fsf@kyleam.com> <87lhceo8he.fsf@gmail.com> <87mvwtvrkc.fsf@kyleam.com> <87vbbhgo9h.fsf@gmail.com> <878u8dgesa.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38323) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zbp9f-00054k-Tq for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 08:16:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zbp9a-0008Hm-2D for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 08:16:11 -0400 Received: from mxin.ulb.ac.be ([164.15.128.112]:27175) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zbp9Z-0008H0-Sj for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 08:16:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <878u8dgesa.fsf@gmail.com> (Oleh Krehel's message of "Fri, 11 Sep 2015 17:24:21 +0200") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Oleh Krehel Cc: Achim Gratz , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Oleh Krehel writes: > Now, please check my facts again. Is it true that Emacs doesn't have > maint and has instead a bunch of hanging branches for each release that > aren't meant to have master merged into them on release? In emacs, the current emacs24 branch will never be used for a release unless there is a serious concern with emacs-24.5 that needs a emacs-24.6 release. So it sees no commits, except for the few commits that "really should go into 24.6 if it is ever released". Before 24.5 was released, emacs-24 had more commits, and was regularly merged backinto master. > If so, what > exactly is the advantage in applying a patch to a stable branch and then > merging it into master, instead of applying to patch to master and > cherry-picking it to the stable branch? We don't want to create to distinct commits for a given change, because they will not be related in the git sense (the =C2=AB DAG =C2=BB) and it wi= ll be more difficult to e.g. list every branch that has a given change. > I'm not saying that I'm a Git expert or anything, far from it. But I > observe the Git history of Emacs and Org regularly, and both models seem > to be working fine for the users, release-wise. But the master branch of > Emacs looks a lot better than the master branch of Org, and I don't > understand the trade-off that Org's model offers to compensate for that > lack of prettiness. IIUC Org has a similar model, except that maint is merged far more often into master (basically after every commit to maint). Probably this is done so that `master branch users' don't need to wait before seeing the bugfixes that go to maint. --=20 Nicolas