I am very interested in Jonathan's proposal. I think we could really
benefit from a workflow that keeps branches in a (near) ready to
release state and prioritizes the stability of our active branches.
It would be great to hear from other community members regarding our
current process, its benefi
First, it's often not an issue -- new contributors typically start with
small patches that the reviewer or committer can easily rebase to the
appropriate branch, and by the time they're working on more invasive fixes
(we don't have any of those, right? :) they get used to how it works.
But when th
Jonathan,
Il Mer 15 Dic 2021, 21:11 Jonathan Ellis ha scritto:
> What are the benefits of cherry picking vs committing to the oldest
> relevant branch and merging forwards?
We (and most of the ASF projects I am involved in) ask contributors to
target the master branch for the patches.
How can
What are the benefits of cherry picking vs committing to the oldest
relevant branch and merging forwards? Git is designed around merge since
that preserves the commit sha which allows it to be tracked across
branches. And a merge based workflow avoids the problem here by design.
On Wed, Dec 15,
Hello Pulsar Community,
As far as I can tell, we do not have a publicly defined process for
cherry-picking commits to release branches [0]. As a new committer,
I'd like to provide my newly gained perspective and ask that we add
some guidance to our wiki.
Regarding cherry picking, I see two patter
