On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > There are two possible options for the workings of the "stable" branch > > though > > I want to point out: > > 1) As you described commit everything to "master" and cherry pick the > > changes to "stable" if wanted. (backports) > > 2) Try to decide where to commit beforehand and commit small changes > > directly to "stable" and then merge that to "master". (forwardports) > > > > The latter generates more merge commits but less "duplicated" commits. > > An example project that uses this model is git itself. > > Yes. And it does work much better. We 1 on parted and we're planning > to move to 2 after 1.9 gets released since it makes our merging, > releasing and changelog much clearer
Do you typically have entries in debian/changelog in your commits? Because that's going to generate conflicts whatever solution you use. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
