On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 13:41 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 20:33, Richard Purdie > <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 09:49 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> I noticed the 2011-1 branch today and it seems it is not fully merged > >> into master; this is a mistake since it will create an upgrade path > >> problem for users of it. > > > > Its a branch, master continues on, that branch just gets fixes suitable > > for a stable/release branch. I appreciate people have different > > definitions of stable and we need to do a better job of documenting what > > those criteria are. As a quick attempt: > > The point here is not about what is allowed to get into it or not but > how it is going to work related to master. > > The point is that if we keep it as a branch and doesn't merge it into master. > > If we merge the stable branch into master, from time to time, users > that want to go to move to master can merge master into their branch > as it has a common parent and the conflicts fixed. If it is done too > late, it becomes a nightmare. > > This is something I'd like to discuss and see how people think about > the process and what way we ought to use.
I don't really see the point of this. Basically you're asking that every time there is a commit to the branch there is also a merge commit. You can just as easily either force a checkout of master, or merge against master with a one sided merge. Git doesn't have the confidence to do that automatically but I'm pretty sure there is a simple way to tell git to do a one sided merge... Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
