On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 08:18:10AM +0100, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Tuesday, 1 de February de 2011 01:23:01 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > just face it, git's merging concept makes most sense for longer-lived > > feature branches, but not so much for bugfix branches. not even linux > > itself uses a forward-merge strategy for bugfix branches. > > How does the kernel work then? As far as I know, everything is merged. > not bugfix branches, e.g. what will become 2.6.37.1. it is in fact maintained by a different person and linus doesn't care much for it. it just works better if the stability of a patch is proven in someone higher up the hierarchy's master. fwiw, even in linux' history you'll find merged cherry-picks, but that's presumably because less critical bugfixes often take so long to propagate in the hierarchy.
having said that, i do think a clean forward-merging strategy is worthwhile and feasible, given the proper infrastructure and mindsets - e.g. what i envision for qt's opengov. but this is so utterly incompatible with kde's resources and low quality standards^W^Wbarrier to entry culture.