John Johansen: > On 10/03/2017 12:16 AM, intrigeri wrote: >> Steve Beattie: >>> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 07:50:56AM +0200, intrigeri wrote: >>>> One thing I've noticed is that the way changes are backported from >>>> master to older branches (i.e. tons of cherry-picks) makes history >>>> hard to analyze, i.e. it's very hard to tell "what do we have in >>>> master but not in apparmor-2.11". One way we fix that problem in other >>>> projects is to fork topic branches not off master, but off the oldest >>>> maintenance branch the topic branch is a candidate for, and then we >>>> merge the topic branch into all candidate maintenance branches, no >>>> cherry-pick involved, no commit duplication, and history becomes more >>>> useful :)
> Hrmmm this is problematic. Many patches come out of development and > then end up being backported/reworked as fixes for older releases. OK. >> This is not what I'm proposing. Instead, I'm suggesting we do >> merge forward only and essentially forget that cherry-pick exists. > I don't see how that would work. Often the code is different enough > that merging forward just doesn't work, and cherry-picked patches > are more of backported patches. > At which point you are now doing backports and forward merges which > isn't what you want. OK, fair enough. Then I'm retracting my proposal :) Cheers, -- intrigeri -- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
