* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 01:36:01PM CEST: > At Saturday 12 June 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > This is ok for maint, except that cscope.test does not exist on > > maint. I folded the patch below into it, committed on maint, and > > commited a separate patch for cscope.test in your name to > > dr-cscope, and merged that into master again. > > I usually get Git generate patches against latest master branch: > $ git format-patch origin/master > but I see that this might be problematic sometimes. Am I doing > something wrong, or is this simply something we have to live with?
You are doing nothing wrong: you produce patches for master, which is usually the right thing to do. I may decide, however, that some patch would be nice to have in the next 1.11.x stable release, too, and not just in the master branch. In that case, I apply it to my (currently unpublished) maint branch and see what happens. :-) For new feature development that may require a number of interrelated patches, we may decide to put them in a topic branch first. In that case, patches that belong to that feature should go on top of the topic branch. A topic branch fully merged to master can usually receive a merge from master, when new topic developments require new feature that are in master only. > Moreover, is the layout/organization of git branches in the Automake > main repository something a contributor should be aware of? Good question. I think it depends upon how involved you want to be. In an earlier mail today I asked you about whether you wanted to also push patches yourself (rather than me applying them from your mails). If you want to do that, I think it would be good if we used branches in a consistent way. If not, then there is less need to do so. For patches that are obvious candidates for branch-1.11 also, you could create them on top of maint if you like. But so far it hasn't been a big problem either way, so you can also just continue the way you've done so far. I will push my maint branch now, however, to make it public. > P.S. Sorry that I forgot to update the copyright years in the modified > scripts :-( Oh, don't worry. Cheers, Ralf
