[Libreoffice] Work Flow Inquiry

Norbert Thiebaud nthiebaud at gmail.com
Mon May 30 11:42:19 PDT 2011

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Michael Meeks <michael.meeks at novell.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 19:13 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
>> Also: 3.3.3 codefreezed today with another ~35 most likely rather
>> important commits. Are those merged back to master (or manually
>        I would hope these are all cherry-picked back from a more recent branch
> (personally).
>        I do agree, that we need a well defined point to say: "enough
> back-merging" - perhaps this is 3.x.2 or something ;-)

considering the nice blog explaining the release model

it would make some sens to merge 3.X.(0)
and since 3.X is a 'stabilisation version' then do a final merge at
the time from 3.X.1, the first 'production' version.
That would accommodate the main concern: time crunch in the 3.X
stabilization period.

after that, cherry pick, and never ever merge one way or the other.
(iow the 3.X branch diverge from that point on)

wrt 'log readability'. what is really confusing is a mix of cherry
pick _and_ merge.
if you purely cherry pick, commit show up only once in the log of the
branch you are working on
if you are merging they also show up once (but the graph is a bit more complex)
it is when there is a mix of cherry pick and then a merge on top of it
that the history get's confusing, with some of the same things done on
both leg of the graph...

So, I think what is actually more important is to choose one method or
the other for any given 'period', and avoid as much as possible to mix
the two ways of porting changes...


More information about the LibreOffice mailing list