Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> writes: > The following other branches, also from my GitHub repo, might be > useful: > > * 'write-refs-sooner-2.3' -- suggested merge of the change to 'maint'. > > * 'write-refs-sooner-master' -- suggested merge of the change to > 'master'. > > * 'write-refs-sooner-rebased-2.3' and > 'write-refs-sooner-rebased-master' -- rebases of 'write-refs-sooner' > onto 'maint' and 'master' respectively, in case anybody is > interested to see how the individual patches would look if > implemented natively on these branches.
Thanks, that indeed is very helpful and instructive. A mechanical merge of sooner-2.2 to maint trivially gave sooner-2.3, so I am happy with that one. Even though I manually resolved it and the resulting tree pretty much matched with your suggested merge, I am hesitant to record the change of sooner-2.3 as a single large merge to master. I am tempted to record this as somewhat a wicked merge, e.g. - apply posted patches on maint-2.2, which is your sooner-2.2; - branch sooner-2.3 from maint, merge sooner-2.2; - branch sooner-master from v2.4.0, apply the patches in your sooner-rebased-master on top, and then merge sooner-2.3, possibly with "-s ours" And then sooner-master would record both "if built naturally on 2.4" progression, which would explain what was done much better than a huge merge of sooner-2.3 into 'master', and "what is to be done on older codebase". I dunno. Anyway, these patches looked good both on 2.2 and on 2.4. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
