There shouldn't be any 2_4_x branch. 2_4_X is the one.
2015-10-21 16:18 GMT+02:00 Shil Sinha <shil.si...@gmail.com>: > Thanks Pascal! The only other question I have is, what's the difference > between the 2_4_X and 2_4_x branches? > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Pascal Schumacher < > pascalschumac...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Welcome Shils! :) >> >> Am 20.10.2015 um 22:41 schrieb Shil Sinha: >> >> >> BTW, I think it's still a good idea to use PRs for a short period of >>> time, so that you can accommodate with our dev process. In particular, how >>> patches should be applied on master and cherry picked on maintenance >>> branches. >> >> >> I committed a small change to master and cherry picked it to 2_4_X >> yesterday, hope that was ok. >> >> Yes that was fine. In my opinion you do not need to create a pull request >> for small changes like this one ( >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-groovy/commit/d6497413f6e94f9b66e0d2853ef1ac21d00c1f98 >> ). >> >> I'll continue using PRs going forward for the time being. >> As far as merging pull requests, I read through a few of the dev threads >> from when Groovy migrated to Apache, but couldn't find a definitive >> workflow. Is that documented anywhere? If not, I can write it as I get >> familiar. >> >> I use >> >> git fetch https://github.com/<contributor>/incubator-groovy.git >> <pull-request-branch> >> git cherry-pick <commit(s) of the pull request> >> git commit -a --amend --> to add "(closes #<pull-request-number>) at the >> end of the title" >> >> BTW: I prefer a model where committers are also supposed to go through >>> pull request / review processes. I believe that does not decrease >>> productivity, but has a range of beneficial effects. Becoming a >>> committer should ideally just mean the ability to approve and merge >>> other people's pull requests/patches. >> >> >> I find this beneficial as well, for code changes. It's a useful way to >> keep up with the codebase, rather than just browsing commits. >> >> I also think this is beneficial for improving quality and spreading >> knowledge. But the reviews have to be done in a timely manner and at the >> moment we are to slow to even review pull request (imho). So we use this >> model only of for very important changes or when are unsure about a change. >> >> -Pascal >> > >
