Re: [O] Merge branch 'maint'

Oleh Krehel writes: > Now, please check my facts again. Is it true that Emacs doesn't have > maint and has instead a bunch of hanging branches for each release that > aren't meant to have master merged into them on release? In emacs, the current emacs24 branch will never be

Re: [O] Merge branch 'maint'

Kyle Meyer writes: >> As far as I understood, maint is a subset of master, i.e. all commits >> that are in maint are in master as well. Is that correct? > > Yes. As long as there aren't any new commits on maint that have yet to > be merged What is the purpose of maint exactly?

Re: [O] Merge branch 'maint'

Am 11.09.2015 um 13:59 schrieb Oleh Krehel: What is the purpose of maint exactly? It's a bit short on the explanation side, but does that help? http://orgmode.org/worg/dev/index.html Also (not exactly the branch model ORg uses, but explains the issues in more detail):

Re: [O] Merge branch 'maint'

Stefan Nobis writes: > Oleh Krehel writes: > >> Would it be so hard for Git to perform a single merge of master into >> maint on release, while keeping them separate and cherry-picking >> in-between for the sake of a clean linear history? > > The

Re: [O] Merge branch 'maint'

Hello Oleh, On 11 September 2015 at 04:59 PDT, Oleh Krehel wrote: > What is the purpose of maint exactly? In Emacs git repository there's > master and emacs24. All commits apply to master first, while some are > cherry picked onto emacs24. The emacs24 branch will never be merged into > master:

Re: [O] Merge branch 'maint'

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 06:26:59PM -0400, Kyle Meyer wrote: > Oleh Krehel writes: > > > Why not just cherry-pick the commits from master onto maint, or the > > other way around? That would result in no merge commits. > > The result of doing that is IMO worse than many merge

Re: [O] Merge branch 'maint'

Josiah Schwab writes: Hi Josiah, >> As I understood, for Org mode some commits are applied to maint, and >> then merged into master. Why? > > It may be helpful for you to do a some background reading on workflows > with git. Have you ever read the gitworkflows man page? > >

Re: [O] Merge branch 'maint'

Achim Gratz writes: > Am 11.09.2015 um 13:59 schrieb Oleh Krehel: >> What is the purpose of maint exactly? > > It's a bit short on the explanation side, but does that help? > > http://orgmode.org/worg/dev/index.html It does help a bit. > Also (not exactly the branch model

Re: [O] Merge branch 'maint'

Oleh Krehel writes: > Would it be so hard for Git to perform a single merge of master into > maint on release, while keeping them separate and cherry-picking > in-between for the sake of a clean linear history? The question is not whether git is capable of doing this (there

Re: [O] Merge branch 'maint'

Kyle Meyer writes: > Hello, > > Oleh Krehel writes: > >> Hi all, >> >> Was the issue of abundant "Merge branch 'maint'" commit messages >> discussed before? I couldn't find a reference... >> >> It's not a big deal, really, but I personally prefer to have

Re: [O] Merge branch 'maint'

Hi, Oleh Krehel wrote: > Kyle Meyer writes: > > > Hello, > > > > Oleh Krehel writes: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Was the issue of abundant "Merge branch 'maint'" commit messages > >> discussed before? I couldn't find a reference... >

Re: [O] Merge branch 'maint'

Oleh Krehel writes: > Why not just cherry-pick the commits from master onto maint, or the > other way around? That would result in no merge commits. The result of doing that is IMO worse than many merge commits. For each fix in maint, you'd end up with two commits that are

Re: [O] Merge branch 'maint'

Hello, Oleh Krehel writes: > Hi all, > > Was the issue of abundant "Merge branch 'maint'" commit messages > discussed before? I couldn't find a reference... > > It's not a big deal, really, but I personally prefer to have linear > history with commits that actually do