PS. but i see the rational. to have stable fixes to get into release. perhaps named release branches is still a way to go if one cuts them early enough.
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlie...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com> wrote: > > Since merges are done by committers, it’s easy to retarget a contributor’s >> PRs but committers would PR against develop, > > IMO it is anything but easy to resolve conflicts, let alone somebody > else's. Spark just asks me to resolve them myself. But if you don't have > proper target, you can't ask the contributor. > > and some projects like PredictionIO make develop the default branch on >> github so it's the one contributors get by default. >> > That would fix it but i am not sure if we have access to HEAD on github > mirror. Might involve INFRA to do it And in that case it would amount > little more but renaming. It would seem it is much easier to create a > branch, "stable master" or something, and consider master to be ongoing PR > base. > > -1 on former, -0 on the latter. Judging from the point of both contributor > and committer (of which I am both).it will not make my life easy on either > end. > >
