On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:25:02 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:01:50 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 12:57:10 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote:
I which case, updating with master will be counter productive. Thanks for the heads up. I will just have to rely on the devs to cherry-pick what was not originally included in the branch.

cherry-picking is discouraged in that scenario as it will complicate merging 2.065 branch back into master after release. rebase sounds like best fit.

I'd argue that the release branches should be considered public history and thus never rebased. You can always just merge master into them...


Can't agree. Release _tags_ are public. Release branches exist primarily to organize development. Merging master into release branch working on it and then merging all back to master creates very messy making it much harder to say what commits where introduces by release process.

Reply via email to