[devel] Fwd: Re: Getting "SO Yesterday" blead via git

[devel] Fwd: Re: Getting "SO Yesterday" blead via git

[Alexey Tourbin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1572 bytes --]

----- Forwarded message from Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4> -----

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:12:56 +0000
From: Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4>
Subject: Re: Getting "SO Yesterday" blead via git
To: Rafael Garcia-Suarez <rgarciasuarez@gmail>
Cc: Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net>, Perl 5 Porters <perl5-porters@perl>
Message-ID: <20080306141256.GB79799@plum.flirble.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i

On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 03:04:06PM +0100, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:

> Currently we cherry-pick from blead into maint-*. This is a bit
> inconvenient, since we need to track what commits have been reviewed or
> not. I was thinking about making a maint-5.10-review branch that follows
> blead by fast-forward, and that says "up to this point we have reviewed
> patches and the relevant ones have been cherry-picked into maint-5.10".
> How sane does this sound?

A simple fast-forward on one branch doesn't actually work.

There a lot of patches that I find I want to cherry pick, but they are waiting
on some other fix. Meanwhile other patches are committed to trunk.

I don't think that a "don't do that" is going to work, because Perl is
sufficiently big and sufficiently diverse that we're not going to find out
that some blead patches are actually troublesome until some days (or even
weeks) after they are committed, because of the diverse nature of platforms
and configurations upon which Perl builds and is built.

Patches really need a third state of "maybe", with annotations on why it's
maybe.

Nicholas Clark

----- End forwarded message -----

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]