Phillip Wood <phillip.w...@talktalk.net> writes: > On 20/03/18 19:32, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> With or without the above plan, what we saw from you were a bit >> messy to queue. The --keep-empty fix series is based on 'maint', >> while the --signoff series depends on changes that happened to >> sequencer between 'maint' and 'master', but yet depends on the >> former. > > Yes, that is awkward and unfortunate but the idea behind splitting them > into two separate series was to have a single set of bug fixes in the > history. The feature needed to be based on master, so if I'd had the bug > fixes in the same series you'd of had to cherry-pick them to maint which > would break branch/tag --contains. I'm not sure if that is a better option.
I said "a bit messy" but that was a statement of a fact, not a complaint. Sometimes, we cannot avoid that necessary solutions to real-life problems must be messy. I still think what you sent was the best organization, given the constraints ;-). Thanks.
