From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Jerram Subject: Re: Upstream synchronization documentation Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 01:39:38 +0100 Message-ID: <20170704003938.5992530.16448.71957@ossau.homelinux.net> References: <87fuedyfij.fsf@gmx.us> <87d19h8sr5.fsf@kyleam.com> <87wp7pwhpn.fsf@gmx.us> 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]:34209) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dSBsZ-0008NW-9N for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 20:39:48 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dSBsV-0006vj-9l for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 20:39:47 -0400 Received: from smtp-out-2.talktalk.net ([62.24.135.66]:12469) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dSBsV-0006ov-2w for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 20:39:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87wp7pwhpn.fsf@gmx.us> 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" To: Rasmus Pank Roulund , kyle@kyleam.com Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org No problem to stick with 'backport' if that is the conventional term here. = Thanks for considering and explaining the point.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Neil=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Original Message =C2=A0 From: Rasmus Pank Roulund Sent: Monday, 3 July 2017 18:22 To: kyle@kyleam.com Cc: neil@ossau.homelinux.net; emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Subject: Re: [O] Upstream synchronization documentation Kyle Meyer 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=3Dbackport" 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=E2=80=99m 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 repository. Thanks, Rasmus --=20 Dung makes an excellent fertilizer