On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:32:45AM -0500, via llvm-dev wrote: > My only hesitation with this is that this requires use of cherry-pick, > which is not idea. The way most git repositories work is to put > everything that should go into a release branch in the release branch > *first* and then merge the release branch to master, ensuring that > everything going out in a release will make it into the next release. > This is how the gitflow workflow works, for example.
The model of "commit to oldest first" is IMO one of the most stupid concepts I have ever seen in git "workflows". It is contrary to the way software development works and essentially just a bad workaround for broken cherry picks. I've seen more than one project starting to use this model due to advocacy after deciding to use git, stumble around with it for a release or two and then going back to a normal release management approach. Even the argument you have presented here does not make sense to me. Just because a change has been committed to a release branch, doesn't mean it won't get replaced later. Joerg _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
