On 02/14/2018 06:21 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > the -x would only add it to the comment making it harder to find. As for > multiple stable branches; merging forward always folows all branches > forward so a fix on 4.9 would be merged forward to 4.10 and then 4.10 would > be merged forward again to 4.11 and finally to master. of course there is > always work to do in terms of solving merge conflicts but these are > generally less then port work as the order of any commits to the > intemediats is always preserved.
I don't say this workflow is "bad" or does not work "technically". To me, it looks "hard" to make a decision to which branch should a fix go in the first place. And in this workflow, you basically have to decided it _before_ the merge: To 4.11? or even 4.10? And if I should have merged to 4.10 but merged it to 4.11, now what? In contrast of the cherry-pick workflow: you decide _after_ to which versions the fix should be backported to. To me, this seems much convenient. But can live with that. René
