Jeff, That we did before. I don't think that's good enough. It must be the same commit as far as I'm concerned. Any conflict will be made explicit in a merge commit that way.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Jeff Hair <j...@greenqloud.com> wrote: > Maybe require all cherry-picks to use the -x option, which puts the > original commit hash in the cherry-picked commit message? > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Remi Bergsma < > rberg...@schubergphilis.com> > wrote: > > > On a certain night when a release had been cut and there was some worry > > about a security fix not being included. The root cause was that we > > cherry-picked that fix and as a result its commit hash had changed. Hence > > we couldn’t find it. > > > > I’d recommend using forward merging instead of back porting aka > > cherry-picking, so the commit hashes stay the same and fixes are easily > > traceable. > > > > Just my $0.02. > > > > Regards, > > Remi > > > > > > > > > > > > On 19/01/16 08:45, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:20 AM, John Burwell < > john.burw...@shapeblue.com > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > >> In terms of the merge strategy, nothing about the current process > would > > >> change. Defects would be fixed on the branch where they occurred and > > then > > >> forward ported to master. For each maintained LTS branch less than 14 > > >> months old, only blocker and critical defects that fall within the > LTS’ > > >> branch scope would be pulled back from master. Therefore, the number > of > > >> defects backported should be relatively small. Any defects found and > > fixed > > >> in an LTS branch would be forward ported to master. I will clarify the > > >> proposal to establish this merge pattern to ensure that LTS does not > > >> violate or impede the flow of defect fixes on master and maintained > > monthly > > >> releases. > > >> > > > > > >John, Any backporting should be avoided. Any fix review should include > > the > > >contemplation of the question, 'Is this on the right branch?'. That is > my > > >point. I am not against LTS. I want fixes to be traceable by their > commit > > >id over all branches. Backporting is killing in that respect. > > > > > >I am not the release manager so rest assured I will not make an issue > of > > >this any more. I won't hold my peace either, though. > > > > > > > > >-- > > >Daan > > > > > > -- > *Jeff Hair* > Technical Lead and Software Developer > > Tel: (+354) 415 0200 > j...@greenqloud.com > www.greenqloud.com > -- Daan
