On 05/10/2011 08:50 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > On 05/10/2011 02:12 PM, Richard Heck wrote: >> On 05/10/2011 06:58 AM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: >>>> Third, when we switch to git, bugs will be fixed in branch first, >>>> then these changes get merged into master automatically. >>>> >> This is a separate issue, but surely this isn't true. Bugs will get >> fixed in git branches and merged into trunk, not fixed in BRANCH_2_0_X >> (or whatever it is then called) and merged into trunk. > > Vincent meant that bugs should get fixed in git branches which were > *branched* from BRANCH_2_0_X, not from master. Those branches would > then get merged into BRANCH_2_0_X first and then (or at the same time) > into master. > I'll have to think about this. The current policy of committing first to trunk makes a lot of sense, as far as keeping branch stable. There are plenty of cases where a bug gets fixed in trunk first, and then we wait to commit to branch until we see how that goes. Of course, the downside to this is that there may be less testing of trunk than of branch. E.g., I use BRANCH_2_0_X for actual work, not trunk.
Richard
