From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleh Krehel Subject: Re: Merge branch 'maint' Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:32:25 +0200 Message-ID: <87lhcdgh6u.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87twr37il4.fsf@gmail.com> <87y4gfpkjy.fsf@kyleam.com> <87lhceo8he.fsf@gmail.com> <87mvwtvrkc.fsf@kyleam.com> <87vbbhgo9h.fsf@gmail.com> <87a8stxgcc.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56892) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZaPMm-0000Kc-Dm for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:31:56 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZaPMj-00016G-6Q for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:31:52 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]:36077) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZaPMj-00016A-0e for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:31:49 -0400 Received: by wicgb1 with SMTP id gb1so65088604wic.1 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 07:31:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87a8stxgcc.fsf@gmail.com> (Josiah Schwab's message of "Fri, 11 Sep 2015 05:58:43 -0700") 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: Josiah Schwab Cc: Kyle Meyer , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Josiah Schwab writes: Hi Josiah, >> As I understood, for Org mode some commits are applied to maint, and >> then merged into master. Why? > > It may be helpful for you to do a some background reading on workflows > with git. Have you ever read the gitworkflows man page? > > https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/gitworkflows.html > > This page discusses many of the questions you have raised. Thanks for the link. I've read it, and it does make sense. But making sense doesn't make it more convenient. I can understand some feature branch being merged, but is the workflow of applying a single commit to maint and merging maint into master really the best that Git can offer? Would it be so hard for Git to perform a single merge of master into maint on release, while keeping them separate and cherry-picking in-between for the sake of a clean linear history? The easy way would be to rewrite maint on each release, but perhaps Git can do better? Oleh