On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 11:13 AM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > > I'd frame the reasoning differently: Our current merge strategy is > vestigial and we can't rely on it in many, if not most, cases. Patches > rarely merge cleanly across majors requiring -s ours w/amend or other > changes per branch. This effectively clutters up our git history, hides > multi-branch changes behind merge commits, makes in-IDE annotations less > effective, and makes the barrier for reverting bad patches higher.
I suspect another strategy just moves this around, but perhaps for the better. > On the positive side, it makes it much less likely we will forget to apply > a bugfix patch on all branches, and it's the Devil we Know and the entire > project understands and is relatively consistent with the current strategy. > > What other positives are there to the current merge strategy that I may not > be thinking of? I think that's the big one. While I don't expect that to be an issue, there's no way to know if it will become one. That said, I'm game to try it, but then, which CI is the source of truth? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
