Re: Branching off 2.2

From: Hubert Figuiere <>
Date: Wed Dec 29 2004 - 23:16:12 CET

On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 20:54 +0100, J.M. Maurer wrote:

> > -keep track of all the commits
> If people just say "backport" or "forward" port in their commit mails,
> i'll track it automatically..

often they forget. I don't blame anyone.

> > -determine if it should be backported and if it can. The bug fix would
> > be done in the right branch, then we could automatically merge, and the
> > porting possibilities more likely to happen.
> Fixing a bug in STABLE does not always mean that it can be forwardported
> without issues.

But the proportion is higher. More STABLE bugfix can be re-merged in
HEAD than HEAD bugfixes in STABLE.

> Same holds for HEAD to STABLE. So neither can be done
> 'automatically' as far as I can see.

But greatly simpliflied as any change in STABLE is supposed to go in

> Furthermore, we've had fixes in
> 2.0.x that i didn't want to end up in 2.1.x, as the fix was done there
> in a different way, or was not needed.

Was not needed ? What do you mean ? Code robustness is probably a good
thing. Not needed means that the check was performed before because of
new code.


Crazy French -
Received on Wed Dec 29 23:17:41 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 29 2004 - 23:17:43 CET