On 2/24/14, 2:34 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Andrew Edwards <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/24/14, 1:54 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
I don't think merging back into master is feasible at this point. We have
been merging fixes to master first, then cherry-picking/rebasing them to the
release branch, and I don't think a merge to master is necessary or
desirable with this model.
Make sense to me.
Please don't just skip over the entire earlier discussion like this.
@Daniel: I'd argue that it is only really necessary and desirable
precisely in that model, because the Git history holds all the merging
information otherwise anyway. But I really thought we were done with
this discussion some weeks ago…
David, I honestly think this is a waste of time. Since nothing is
directly implemented into 2.065 (everything contained in it were either
cherry-picked directly or via pull request from master) my path to
resolving all of these issues ends up being the same. I review the
commit history and see which changes effectively caused the divergence.
In every case, master's current state is a natural progressing from
where 2.065 was extracted so I end up choosing to keep what's in master
as the resolution path. This is a lot of time wasted or zero gain: time
that can be better spent doing things that are important, like tracking
and picking changes that address regressions to 2.065.0 in preparation
for a point release and preparing the beta release for 2.066.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
