On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> I sttrongly disagree with Animesh here and think Rohit is overlooking a >> simple fact. At the moment the branches are for 'stabalizing'. >> Fixing on master first is in direct contradiction with that. >> >> We have not been stabalizing 4.4. it contains bug that have during the >> release periods for 4.4.0 and 4.4.1 been fixed on master. That shouldn't >> have been allowed to happen. > [Animesh] Clearly we have disagreement. To avoid the issue that you mention > David had created forward branch for 4.2 and I found it useful and continued > with that approach in 4.3. With forward branch which are really staging it > was a simple merge of forward back to release branch. The other approach of > merging release branch into master work as well but in my opinion keeping > master as the default branch (with protection of course ) is simpler to > understand and creates less confusion > I abandoned that approach as cherry-picking started to give complicated conflicts that I could not resolve. Also one particular conflict, the one in the db upgrade script, kept coming back. This has cost me a lot of time for work that was not there to begin with. Hence my big aversion of the forward branches. -- Daan
