* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:23:47PM CEST: > On Thursday 19 August 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > 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)? > Yes.
Good. :-) > Moreover, an avarage git user with pushing right should know what you > explained above, i.e. 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)? > ... while the usefulness of the bug-fixing-through-branching policy you > are using for automake might not be obvious (it wasn't for me until your > explanation in a previous mail). > > In light of these considerations, is my wording acceptable? Yes, sure. [ reordered ] > P.S. When you said ... > > If no, this paragraph should be rewritten, if yes, then how come you > > didn't just merge maint into branch-1.11 and master? ;-) > ... were you asking why I didn't do that in my last push? Yep. > Well, > because I find an explicit merge of the bug-fixing branch in all the > affected branches clearer: it's like saying "Hey, I'm doing this > merge to fix a bug!", while this is unclear in a merge of e.g. maint. Good argument. Please complain if you feel I'm giving you too much of a hard time. My impression is that it improves your patches and your argumentation. :-) Cheers, and thanks for persisting, Ralf
