On 02/14/2018 06:21 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> the -x would only add it to the comment making it harder to find. As for
> multiple stable branches; merging forward always folows all branches
> forward so a fix on 4.9 would be merged forward to 4.10 and then 4.10 would
> be merged forward again to 4.11 and finally to master. of course there is
> always work to do in terms of solving merge conflicts but these are
> generally less then port work as the order of any commits to the
> intemediats is always preserved.
I don't say this workflow is "bad" or does not work "technically".
To me, it looks "hard" to make a decision to which branch should a fix
go in the first place. And in this workflow, you basically have to
decided it _before_ the merge: To 4.11? or even 4.10? And if I should
have merged to 4.10 but merged it to 4.11, now what?
In contrast of the cherry-pick workflow: you decide _after_ to which
versions the fix should be backported to.
To me, this seems much convenient. But can live with that.