the dev list dropped off this reply, so sending again... although I think Kevin has indirectly answered this question already on cherry picks.
On 04/18/2017 10:23 AM, Mats Wichmann wrote: > On 04/18/2017 09:00 AM, Daniel Mihai wrote: >> Thanks Phil! It would be great if you could start running that script every >> once in a while. There is already confusion in Gerrit ? some of the 1.3 >> patches are waiting for this script run, and others get cherry-picked >> manually into master. It would be useful to switch everyone to waiting for >> the script. >> >>>> but before would it be possible to rebase master on 1.3.0-RC1 ? to avoid >>>> to stay on 1.2 base >> >> I don?t fully understand the implications of this rebase. If anyone else >> understands better than me, please speak up. Otherwise, please upload your >> proposal in Gerrit and we?ll try to understand. > > I don't think we're "on a 1.2 base" anyway, since 1.3-rel was branched > off master just a little while ago. > > After reading the explanation given earlier on how merges look in > gerrit, I'd actually personally now prefer the merge approach over the > cherry-pick approach: let's not have already reviewed and accepted > commits presented for review again, unless the commit itself has to > change because the base in master is different enough to require it. > > I'm not sure how to even check what is actually in place and what is > missing... I figured this would be a good representation: > > $ git log 1.3-rel ^master --no-merges | grep "^commit" > > But then poking at a few I see things like: > > commit 0f3227999fe7387cec1116a5df47a680277ef5dc > Author: Pawel Winogrodzki <pawelwi at microsoft.com> > Date: Mon Apr 3 16:14:33 2017 -0700 > > IOT-1583: Fixing libcoap W4 warnings. > ... > (cherry picked from commit d3b382c901ee304d4f3466fa33758f5510fdf9d4) > > Am I reading that right? If we "cherry pick" we get different commit > ids and so someone manually will have to check if things were actually > in both 1.3-rel and master, rather than having git be able to tell us? > If so, that sounds... unfortunate. If not, what am I missing? >
