From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rasmus Pank Roulund Subject: Re: Upstream synchronization documentation Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 19:31:00 +0200 Message-ID: <87wp7pwhpn.fsf@gmx.us> References: <87fuedyfij.fsf@gmx.us> <87d19h8sr5.fsf@kyleam.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]:37551) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dS5Bt-0006AQ-SB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 13:31:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dS5Bo-0000Rc-V6 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 13:31:17 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:56454) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dS5Bo-0000Ol-Jk for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 13:31:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87d19h8sr5.fsf@kyleam.com> (Kyle Meyer's message of "Mon, 03 Jul 2017 11:06:22 -0400") 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: kyle@kyleam.com Cc: neil@ossau.homelinux.net, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org 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