I haven't cherry-picked anything into next yet. I've kept working on master and I've been ignoring next. However, there's some things in master that I would like to see in the next release. How do we do that without cherry-picking? Or do we just keep things broken in 2.5 and just shrug our shoulders and say whoops?
Again, I think this work-flow is terrible, and I would like to go back to what we used to do if cherry-picking really breaks things this bad. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > Joe - do you mean you're committing to master and cherry-picking into next? > > I think this would result in two identical-but-different changes appearing > in the two branches, whereas checking into next and merging into master > ends up with the same change appearing in both branches. The result of this > (I think) is that cherry-picking will make history a bit more confusing, > and increase the risk of future merges having conflicts. > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That's assuming that we're fixing for release. I've been doing all >> work in master at this point. I think we're fine doing both >> cherrypicks and merging, but I think that's what makes this process >> complicated. >> >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: >> > >> >>Also, on a side note, for the release, if there's commits in master >> >>that we want in this release, do we do a cherry pick into next? >> > >> > Yes. I see it the opposite way (I commit into next and merge into >> master). >> > >>
