Bruno Haible <br...@clisp.org> writes: >> > easy to compare with the original commit and distinguish >> > branch-only commits from backports. > > You can get limited insights by comparing the ChangeLogs of the > master branch with a stable branch. > > But if what you want is a mechanically verifiable assertion of > any kind, I can tell you that none exists. Backporting patches > is, ultimately, manual developer work. (This is obvious by the > fact that developers who have to maintain 6 or 7 backport branches > spend a *lot* of time on that.) You may trust or may not trust > this developer work, but there is no mechanical way to prove > that you can trust it.
I wasn't asking from a perpective of auditing, more that it makes life far easier if investigating a bug. It's metadata in addition to the commit summary (matching based on a title isn't easy, it's way easier if someone says "here's the commits it's based on"; one can give multiple such lines). If it's not easy for you to add that metadata with your workflow, that's fine, of course. thanks, sam
