Aidan Van Dyk wrote: > * Markus Wanner <mar...@bluegap.ch> [090602 10:23]: >> As mentioned before, I'd personally favor *all* of the back-ports to >> actually be merges of some sort, because that's what they effectively >> are. However, that also bring up the question of how we are going to do >> back-patches in the future with git. > > Well, if people get comfortable with it, I expect that "backports" don't > happenen.. Bugs are fixed where they happen, and "merged" forward into > all affected "later development" based on the bugged area.
I imagine the closest thing to existing practices would be that people would to use "git-cherry-pick -x -n" to backport only the commits they wanted from the current branch into the back branches. AFAICT, this doesn't record a merge in the GIT history, but looks a lot like the linear history from CVS - with the exception that the comment added by "-x" explicitly refers to the exact commit from the main branch. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
