Markus Wanner wrote: > The "new branches getting merged up" could work. That is, applying the > fix to the oldest back-branch which requires the fix first and then > merge it to all newer ones, including HEAD. However, that would require > some rethinking: instead of creating bugfix-patches for HEAD, then > manually adjust patches for back-branches and then group committing, > you'd have to create a bugfix-patch for the oldest branch first, commit > that and then merge that to the newer branches.
That sounds a bit dangerous too, since I imagine there are some changes in the old release branches you wouldn't want merged into the newest releases (say, code affecting sections that got redesigned). Seems you'd want to do is create a new branch as close to the point where the bug was introduced - and then merge that forward into each of the branches. This concept was mentioned in a page linked earlier in the thread[1] and seems like the way monotone recommends people use their system[2]. See that page for more reasons why they think it's good. [1]http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-06/msg00153.php [2]http://www.monotone.ca/wiki/DaggyFixes/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
