On 4/9/2012 11:04 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: > 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
+1; and ++1 for formalizing this at apr.a.o/dev/
