From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Thum Subject: Re: [DEV] New git workflow Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:38:55 +0100 Message-ID: <4F6A587F.9040105@gmx.de> References: <87mx7cf613.fsf@altern.org> <4F69063F.40600@gmx.de> <874ntilxh9.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <4F699579.2090505@gmx.de> <87ehsmwcod.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45585) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SATHD-000848-LD for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:41:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SATHB-0007FA-Qi for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:41:03 -0400 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]:33703) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SATHB-0007EX-H2 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:41:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87ehsmwcod.fsf@Rainer.invalid> 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: Achim Gratz Cc: Bastien , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Achim and Bastien, in case you fancy with the release-branch model now or in the foreseeable future, I'll probably be able to take over some of the work load in case it's a deciding factor. I've done that locally when necessary, and can claim enough git-foo. Cheers, Simon On 03/21/2012 10:01 AM, Achim Gratz wrote: > Simon Thum writes: >> Whether multiple branches are involved depends mainly on what releases >> one intends to maintain. The nice thing in the model is the gradual >> maintenance: A really critical fix could see more backports than a >> nicety. > > Yes. Bastien has to make that decision since he's the one doing the > maintenance. > >> I like the goal maint is set to achieve, I'm just not convinced >> regular merges are a good way to ensure it - after all, merges include >> everything in a branch. If there are no doubts about that on your >> side, I'm fine. > > It was intended as a solution to the problem of either not getting > bugfixes for the latest release or having to live on bleeding edge. It > was too shortlived to judge if it had achieved that goal and how > satisfied people were with it. Bastien is now trying a three-branch > model since he also needs to maintain org within Emacs(*). As long as it > works for him it will work for us, I'd think. > > (*) This should provide similar benefits to users as maint was supposed > to, albeit it may not be obvious to users on how to follow that branch. > > > Regards, > Achim.