On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 14:33, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alex Hunsaker <bada...@gmail.com> writes: >> How exactly patches get applied into back branches?
> There was discussion about that before, but I don't know whether we > really have a solution that will work comfortably. I don't either, not being a -commiter I don't really follow that area much :-) > A couple of > comments: > > * My practice has always been to develop a fix in HEAD first and then > work backwards. I'm going to resist any tool that tries to force me > to do it the other way. Yep, I agree and as you pointed out it does not work anyway (in the sense of being able to keep the same commit id/hash) because you end up needing to change things. > I'd be satisfied with a tool that merges commit reports if they have the > same log message and occur at approximately the same time, which is the > heuristic that cvs2cl uses. I dont think it would be to hard to code that up (main worry is it might be dog slow). BTW the point about git cherry-pick -x is that it includes the original commit hash in the commit message. That way we don't have to do any guess work based on commit time and log message. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
