[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] Merge branch 'maint'

From: Oleh Krehel
Subject: Re: [O] Merge branch 'maint'
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 17:24:21 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Achim Gratz <address@hidden> 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 ORg uses, but explains the issues
> in more detail):
> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
> http://www.draconianoverlord.com/2013/09/07/no-cherry-picking.html
> http://williamdurand.fr/2012/01/17/my-git-branching-model/
>> 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: it's divergent and that's fine.
> You might want to check your facts (most recently, see for instance
> commit 59db4308b546).  Realitity simply doesn't conform to your
> world-view and the conclusions you draw from it are similarly
> distorted. Cherry-picking from master to emacs24 is actually fixing a
> mistake made when committing a bug-fix to master.

Well, there are only 5 commits since the last tag in the emacs-24
branch, the top one being a cherry-pick. I don't really see harm in
them, there are more cherry-picks in that branch.

What exactly is the advantage of having 2 commits in master for 1 commit
in maint? Besides the ease of merging maint into master and master into
maint or release? This ease of merging comes at the cost of ease of
examining the master, which is where most of the work should be anyway.

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? If so, what
exactly is the advantage in applying a patch to a stable branch and then
merging it into master, instead of applying to patch to master and
cherry-picking it to the stable branch?

I'm not saying that I'm a Git expert or anything, far from it. But I
observe the Git history of Emacs and Org regularly, and both models seem
to be working fine for the users, release-wise. But the master branch of
Emacs looks a lot better than the master branch of Org, and I don't
understand the trade-off that Org's model offers to compensate for that
lack of prettiness.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]