I usually patch 2.8 branch, then merge it into the trunk, since most
patches are against the 2.8 branch at the moment.
I include a comment, but that does not quote revision number, just
the fact that it was merged with 2.8 branch. I look up the revision
number from the history. :-)
(No objection to start adding to the revision number, but my English
fails at your sentence: Does it mean that STRIPES_BRANCH was merged
into trunk; or trunk was merged into STRIPES_BRANCH?)
/Janne
On Nov 10, 2008, at 06:18 , Andrew Jaquith wrote:
Forgive me for asking a question that has probably been asked (or
answered) before, but what is the protocol for patching issues
common to the trunk and 2.8 branches?
Should it be (1) patch trunk, and then merge to 2.8, or (2) patch
2.8 and then merge with trunk?
I have in my own work on the Stripes branch, typically been merging
from trunk to Stripes branch
Also when I merge, I add the following commit comment to the
Stripes commit:
"Merged STRIPES_BRANCH with trunk revision 703235."
...which makes it crystal clear that it's from trunk, and up to a
specific revision number.
Regardless of which direction takes precedence (trunk-->2.8 or 2.8--
>trunk), it's probably a good idea to put in merge comments that
include revision numbers.
A.
