On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 01:12:54PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > > > Either way, though, I do not think it is the upstream Git project's > > problem. > > The commit to pick where to queue the fixes actually is my problem, > as I have this illusion that I'd be helping these derived works by > making it easier for them to merge, not cherry-pick.
True, I had just meant the actual rolling of the releases. > But I would imagine that they may go the cherry-pick route anyway, > in which case I may be wasting my time worrying about them X-<. FWIW, I typically cherry-pick rather than merge. The resulting history is not as nice, but it means I don't have to think as hard about the history when doing so. It also means that topics may not be as well tested (e.g., they may have been implicitly relying on some other thing that happened upstream that I did _not_ cherry-pick). But we treat even cherry-picked upstream topics as their own feature branches, and do our normal internal testing and review. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
