lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: git commits on JIRA issues;
Date Thu, 04 Feb 2016 02:40:19 GMT
You can just as easily merge form another branch to master and we want that
commit message.

Also, there are certainly dissenters of cherry picking, a little Google
shows the arguments. Some do not believe in cherry picking at all, it's
certainly not a required operation.

If anyone got consensus on anything from the thread that discussed this I
feel I was reading a different thread.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:25 PM david.w.smiley@gmail.com <
david.w.smiley@gmail.com> wrote:

> Right; I can't imagine any of us actually trying to merge master to
> branch_whatever.  We cherry-pick.  Nobody has dissented on that to my
> knowledge.
>
> ~ David
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:19 PM Ryan Ernst <ryan@iernst.net> wrote:
>
>> > Are you sure *all* back porting will be done by cherry picking?
>>
>> Using merge commits for backporting would require resolving all
>> differences between master and the stable branch. From what I've seen,
>> using merge commits between two long lived branches usually happens in
>> other projects by forward porting, not backporting. I thought this was
>> pointed out (that cherry picking is really the only way to backport) in an
>> earlier git thread, but I could be wrong.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Chris Hostetter <hossman_lucene@fucit.org
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> : > unless i'm missing something, only getting email/jira
>>> : > notifications the first time a specific commit was seen would mean
>>> that
>>> : > when backporting from master to 5x (or 6x down the road) there would
>>> be no
>>> : > tracking email/comment ... which would make it much harder to know
>>> when
>>> : > things were backported.
>>>
>>> : I don't think that is true, since backporting would be done with
>>> : cherry-pick, which actually creates a new commit (and thus a different
>>> : hash). This issue is about the *same* hash appearing on multiple
>>> branches
>>> : through merge commits.
>>>
>>> Are you sure *all* back porting will be done by cherry picking?
>>>
>>> I don't rememebr seeing any clear cut concensus on that to make me
>>> comfortable with taking it for granted in the context of this discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Hoss
>>> http://www.lucidworks.com/
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>> --
> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>
-- 
- Mark
about.me/markrmiller

Mime
View raw message