On Monday 05 May 2014 10:16:47 Geert Janssens wrote: > On Friday 02 May 2014 18:15:19 Mike Alexander wrote: > > --On May 2, 2014 5:02:45 PM -0400 John Ralls > > <jra...@code.gnucash.org>> > > wrote: > > > Updated via https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commit/8cb391b3 > > > (commit) from https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commit/ac9a6ae6 > > > (commit) > > > > > > > > > > > > commit 8cb391b30846f04eb6b874ef6dde723be372b7d0 > > > Author: John Ralls <jra...@ceridwen.us> > > > Date: Fri May 2 14:02:24 2014 -0700 > > > > > > Better test for conflict between optimization and > > > FORTIFY_SOURCE > > > > I pushed this to the maint branch too since the previous changes > > were > > there. > > > > Mike > > Ok. > > Just in case you missed this: now we're in git changes are generally > pushed to the "oldest" branch first and then merged to "more recent" > branches. The "oldest" branch in this case is maint since it will > become 2.6.4, while master will become 2.8.0. > > There are of course situations where we only realize afterwards the > commit needed to go on an older branch as well in which case > cherry-pick is the way to go as you did here. > > This will be an interesting test to see how git merge deals with such > cherry-picked commits the next time maint is merged into master. > Just tested this merge - git is clever enough to detect your cherry-picked commit was already on master and simply ignored it. That's how we like it :)
Geert _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
