On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 12:24:50PM +0100, Hartmut Goebel wrote: > Am 12.02.21 um 21:49 schrieb Andreas Enge: > > From what I understood of the discussion, I would also go with Tobias's and > > Efraim's suggestion: There is a core-updates branch that is constantly open > > and where people can push; this does not seem to leave a possibility of > > mistake, almost by definition. Then we can branch off core-updates-frozen, > > which is frozen :), except for cherry-picked bug fixing commits and merges > > from master. Once it is finished, it is merged into master and deleted. > > This is what I understood, too. > > > Technically speaking, this is the same as your suggestion, Leo, but it > > avoids the constant dance between core-updates, that disappears and > > reappears under the name core-updates-next, that disappears and reappears > > under the name core-updates, and so on. > It's even worse: When removing staging and core-updates at Savannah, this > does not effect local copies. Thus one might push these branches to > Savannah, which might lead to a lot of confusion and trouble.
Alright. Due to overwhelming demand both on and off list, the bikeshed has been repainted.
