Hi Bjoern,
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 11:40 -0400, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> What we decided to do was to just commit the safe fixes to the 3-4
> branch and merge them into master in one go
Right.
> Note that many of us were (and still are?) focusing on stabilizing
> the 3.4 branch and didn't have a working master. So every bit of
> effort to reduce duplication goes a long way in such situations.
Quite - the logical consequence of not doing that is either:
a) cherry picking to a diverging branch without build testing
or b) having to build test a fix on both master and libreoffice-3-4
There is a lot of angst about non-building master at the moment ;-) so
I assume you are asking for b) - which, since it is rather more resource
hungry will result in a lower quality product, and more de-motivated
developers :-) [ or not ? ]
Personally, I can see the attraction to doing one-shot merges of -3-4
to master, after a build test from time to time. I imagine this is why
the TSC agreed this, but lets re-visit it this Thursday.
Having said that - the one-off horrific delay caused by the (lack of)
m106 merge, and thus the big set of missing fixes to master is deadly
annoying. Naturally, it is annoying to see work & fixes duplicates too -
I suppose the best way to fix this is to help kendy (and/or whomever)
expedite the m106 merge and back-merge to master - can you help out with
that Bjoern ? indications are that it is at a promising stage anyway.
ATB,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
