2009/6/7 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > So there are a lot of good reasons to work backwards in patching. > I don't believe that these would be outweighed by some advantage > in the mechanics of applying an unchanging patch to multiple > branches (especially since AFAICT the mechanical advantage would > be pretty darn minimal anyhow).
As another data point, the stable branches of the linux kernel are actually maintained this way. There is a policy that any patch for the stable branches must have already be included (in some form) in HEAD. There is no merging going on. They aren't even using git cherry-pick, but that's because all backpatching goes into a review list rather than happening immediately. The multiple branches and merging that is going on in the linux kernel is all about development of new features, not fixing of bugs. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
