On Jun 18, 2013 11:05 AM, "Josh Elser" <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 6/18/13 10:53 AM, Adam Fuchs wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >2. Back-porting performance improvements to a prior release line that >>> >is not EOL (end-of-life) is usually okay (subject to normal lazy >>> >consensus), so long as it does not change user-facing behavior or API. >>> >It is still strongly preferred to add such fixes in the older branch >>> >first, and merge forward to the newer one(s). >> >> Agree, although doesn't the transition to git alleviate the problems with >> order of operations? >> > > I don't understand what you mean by "order of operations". If you push a commit in 1.6.0-SNAPSHOT that should really be in 1.4.4-SNAPSHOT, Git will not handle this well in terms of an accurate history.
I don't really understand either -- that was mostly speculation. Doesn't the reliance on hashes of the patch rather than commit IDs make it immaterial as to which branch a patch was committed to first? Admitedly, I am not an expert on git. Adam
