On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 11:32 AM Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> wrote:
> All good. I guess it would have lowered my confusion if there would have been 
> a pointer in STATUS that this backports
> stuff needed for 2.4.x from r1836237 as well.

Yeah, I'm a bit torn on this, removing the STATUS entry in the commit
itself helps to figure out commit/vote relation, on the other hand
it's likely to create conflicts for a cherry-pick.

I guess distros/cherry-pickers can easily resolve such non-functional
conflict though.

As a matter of fact each backporter has their own logic/habits here,
some of us concatenate the original commit messages while others use
the STATUS entry as message, some remove the STATUS entry at the same
time while others use a separate commit, plus a combination of all
that of course.

Maybe we should have a discussion on what's the best in this regard
for the contributors/community, and share/evolve our scripts from time
to time ;)


Reply via email to