> On Jun 8, 2016, at 14:50, Cy Schubert <cy.schub...@komquats.com> wrote: > > In message <201606081823.u58inxvl053...@repo.freebsd.org>, Garrett Cooper > write > s: >> Author: ngie >> Date: Wed Jun 8 18:23:33 2016 >> New Revision: 301681 >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/301681 >> >> Log: >> MFstable/10 r301680: >> >> MFC r300625: > > Why MFC to stable/10 and then to stable/9. Doesn't that make stable/10 > stable/9's ancestor? When stable/9 was first branched,HEAD was its > ancestor. Doesn't this cause confusing ancestry in the branch?
Good question! Yes; it makes ^/stable/10 ^/stable/9’s ancestor for changes from ^/head, even though the ancestry was the other way around (^/stable/9 is ^/stable/10’s ancestor, chronologically… but content-wise ^/stable/9 is a subset really of everything in ^/stable/10 and ^/head). There have been a few discussions about this on the developer’s list, and the general consensus was a trickle down method, i.e. “merge from head to head-1; merge from head-1 to head-2; etc”. There’s some minor disagreement on content in the MFC messages, but the way I have things right now is the preferred format AFAIK, i.e. less people have nitpicked the messages, content-wise. After I fix the small formatting annoyance with my MFCs vs others, I was thinking of putting out the scripts I use for CR; it would be nice for everyone to be using the same tools. Thanks! -Ngie
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
