Simon Thum <simon.t...@gmx.de> writes: > Hi all,
Hello, [...] > Many projects use the IMO more sane model of release branches (or > maintenance branches, if you prefer) for major releases. Minor ones > are tagged on those branches, and back-porting critical fixes is much > cleaner: Fixes and development go to master, fixes which should be > back-ported are cherry-picked onto the release branches. When desired, > a new release is tagged. Releases only come from release branches, of > course. It seems that one problem with cherry-picking is the tracking of what is in which branch and from where it comes. I'm not a git neither DVCS guru, but daggyfixes[1][2][3] is saner than cherry-picking. My 2¢. Regards. Footnotes: [1] http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/DaggyFixes [2] http://wiki.monotone.ca/DaggyFixes/ [3] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2922652/git-is-there-a-way-to-figure-out-where-a-commit-was-cherry-picked-from -- Daniel Dehennin Récupérer ma clef GPG: gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x6A2540D1
pgpTMNJvX2vJE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
