On Wednesday 03 January 2018 02:56 PM, Daniel Knittl-Frank wrote:
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
* dk/describe-all-output-fix (2017-12-27) 1 commit
- describe: prepend "tags/" when describing tags with embedded name
An old regression in "git describe --all $annotated_tag^0" has been
fixed.
Will merge to 'next'.
Shouldn't this be merged to 'maint' since it is a bugfix (for a long
standing bug)? Or am I misinterpreting the meaning of the 'maint'
branch?
IIUC, the pipe line here is something like,
[PATCH]
|
(after the patch gets some consensus
when it's not trivial)
|
V
Merge to 'pu'
|
(after waiting for some time to see if someone
shouts about a build failing or complaining
a regression about the PATCH in 'pu')
|
V
Merge to 'next'
|
(after waiting for some time to see if someone
shouts about a build failing or complaining
a regression about the PATCH in 'next')
|
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
| |
(if it's a bugfix for (if it's a new feature or
an already released an enhancement)
version of Git)
| |
V V
Merge to 'maint' Merge to 'master'
Of course 'maint' and 'master' are not diverged completely. They are
'synced' at times.
Disclaimer: I won't say I'm 100% correct with the pipeline. This is just
what I've understood in observing the mailing list, the "What's cooking"
emails and the history of 'git' in the short time that I've been here.
So, there are possibilities that I've said something incorrectly. I
guess the "Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt" document covers it more
comprehensively especially "The Policy" section describes the branches
more clearly.
--
Kaartic
Quote: "Be creative. Be adventurous. Be original. And above all else, be
young." - Wonder Woman
