Hi Daan, Indeed. I prefer committing to master first, as it will ensure everything ends up there (unless some specific use cases). Currently, we have the risk of forgetting to include a fix to a release branch back to master.
When we reverse it, some bug fix that should end up in the x.y branch, is committed to master, then also applied (or reimplemented) to x.y. If you then only take one of the two steps, there is no issue as it will be in master only (and people will notice). In the other situation, when we accept a PR to x.y and forget to merge back, we possibly introduce regression bugs. I will update the diagram and wiki later tonight. While reviewing PRs, let’s be alert to see PRs not pointed towards master and at least discuss it. Regards, Remi > On 2 jul. 2015, at 16:54, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Remi Bergsma <r...@remi.nl> wrote: >> Since the goal is a stable master, I’d say the bug fix should go to master >> first. > > > Remi, this means that merge back of the branch makes no sense anymore. > > -- > Daan
