On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:32:59PM +0100, Macieira Thiago (Nokia-MS-Qt/Oslo)
wrote:
> Em Quarta-feira, 10 de Novembro de 2010, às 15:03:55, Oswald Buddenhagen
> escreveu:
> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:43:37PM +0100, Goffart Olivier
> > (Nokia-MS-Qt/Oslo) wrote:
> > > Things to think about:
> > > - What if we are talking in branch instead of patches?
> > >
> > > So the tool must have a ways to handle both single patches, or full
> > > branch (where sha-1 cannot be modified)
> >
> > we define that this cannot happen. everything is cherry-picked into a
> > long-lived branch.
>
> I don't think that is feasible. There are long-lived projects that branch out
> and work for a long time without being merged in. In that period, they merge
> back from the mainline or whatever branch they were tracking.
>
where is the contradiction here? the merges *into* the long-lived branch
would be cherry-picked (whether literally or via some surrogate
mechanism which can actually do it) just like the (later) ones *from*
that branch.
_______________________________________________
Opengov mailing list
Opengov@qt-labs.org
http://lists.qt-labs.org/listinfo/opengov
