* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:09:15AM CEST: > HACKING: improve description of git "bugfix branches". > HACKING: acknowledge Perl 4 as utterly obsolete.
Nits below. > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] HACKING: improve description of git "bugfix branches". > > * HACKING (Working with git): Extend and make less terse the > description of git "bugfix branches". grammar: ... and make the description of ... less terse. or just: Extend. > --- a/HACKING > +++ b/HACKING > @@ -139,9 +139,11 @@ > # if all seems ok, then actually push: > git push origin maint branch-1.11 master > > -* For bug fixes of long-standing bugs, it may be useful to commit them to > - a new branch based off of the commit that introduced the bug, and merge > - this bugfix branch into active branches that descend from the buggy commit. > +* When fixing a bug (especially a long-standing one), it may be useful > + to commit the fix to a new temporary branch based off the commit that > + introduced the bug. Then this "bugfix branch" can be merged into all > + the active branches descending from the buggy commit. This offers a > + simple way to fix the bug consistently and effectively. Are you aware that merging fix-foo in maint, branch-1.11, and master is equivalent to merging fix-foo in maint, then merging maint in branch-1.11 and master (under the assumption that prior to the fix, maint was an ancestor of branch-1.11 and master)? If no, this paragraph should be rewritten, if yes, then how come you didn't just merge maint into branch-1.11 and master? ;-) > Subject: [PATCH 2/2] HACKING: acknowledge Perl 4 as utterly obsolete. > > * HACKING (Editing automake.in and aclocal.in): Don't tell that Perl 5 > is OK now: that's obvious! In fact, I'd be surprised to see anyone > still using Perl 4... Let's keep our log entries concise, and no need to get excited in them. configure already requires 5.6, so this would have been sufficient, no? HACKING: Perl 4 is obsolete. * HACKING (Editing automake.in and aclocal.in): Remove note about Perl 5. Thanks, Ralf