On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:25:02 UTC, David Nadlinger
wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:01:50 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 12:57:10 UTC, Andrew Edwards
wrote:
I which case, updating with master will be counter
productive. Thanks for the heads up. I will just have to rely
on the devs to cherry-pick what was not originally included
in the branch.
cherry-picking is discouraged in that scenario as it will
complicate merging 2.065 branch back into master after
release. rebase sounds like best fit.
I'd argue that the release branches should be considered public
history and thus never rebased. You can always just merge
master into them...
David
Can't agree. Release _tags_ are public. Release branches exist
primarily to organize development. Merging master into release
branch working on it and then merging all back to master creates
very messy making it much harder to say what commits where
introduces by release process.
