No problem to stick with 'backport' if that is the conventional term here. Thanks for considering and explaining the point.
Neil Original Message From: Rasmus Pank Roulund Sent: Monday, 3 July 2017 18:22 To: k...@kyleam.com Cc: n...@ossau.homelinux.net; emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Subject: Re: [O] Upstream synchronization documentation Kyle Meyer <k...@kyleam.com> writes: >> Whereas in your text I think it is the other way round, isn't it? >> (I.e. the Emacs branch is more stable, and you are talking about >> porting a fix that someone has made in that branch to the Org master.) >> So perhaps 'forward port' would be clearer? > > I suspect that Org's maint (where the Emacs changes land) is generally > more stable than the Org in Emacs's master, but, yes, Emacs's version is > the older version. (Well, with v9.0.9 just synced the versions match, > but maint still has quite a few more commits.) > > Since before I took over "backporting" changes from the Emacs repo, it's > been referred to as this. Although I agree it isn't great word choice, > I'd prefer that we remain consistent so that, for example, "git log -i > --grep=backport" remains informative. > > But if people think using "backport" is too confusing, I'm OK switching > to another term. Of "forward port" and "propagate" (suggested in this > thread by Eric), I prefer "propagate"---or maybe just "port", though > grepping for that might lead to too many false positives. And if we > stick with "backport", it still might be a good idea to clarify in > README_maintainer that we're abusing the term. So at least I’m not crazy for "coming up with" it backporting! So I will keep calling it "backporting" but explain that it is more like propagating changes from the Emacs repository (back) to the Org repository. Thanks, Rasmus -- Dung makes an excellent fertilizer
