Andres Freund wrote:
On 06/02/2009 06:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
At the same time, I don't really buy the theory that relating commits on
different branches via merges will work. In my experience it is very
seldom the case that a patch applies to each back branch with no manual
effort whatever, which is what I gather the merge functionality could
help with. So maybe there's not much help to be had on this ...
You can do a merge and change the commit during that - this way you get
the merge tracking information correct although you did a merge so that
further merge operations can consider the specific change to be applied
on both/some/all branches.
This will happen by default if there is a merge conflict or can be
forced by using the --no-commit option to merge.
Yeah, that should work fine.
However, handling fixes to multiple branches by merging the release
branches to master seems awkward to me. A merge will merge *all* commits
in the release branch. Including "stamp 8.3.1" commits, and fixes for
issues in release branches that are not present in master.
Cherry-picking seems like the best approach.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
