On Monday 09 April 2012, Rainer Jung wrote: > > Do you disagree with the procedure and/or my attempt to describe > > the "normal" way this is handled? > > No, I agree and I think it is more useful to include the CHANGES > entry in the backport commit than to split it in a second commit. > At least that's what I tried to do in the past influenced by > following the list and commit messages. Sometimes the CHANGES > entry either is forgotten during the backport commit or postponed > by a differing personal preference and is then added soon as a > separate commit which I think is less useful but still acceptable.
+1
