cherry-pick to master

[Keith Packard]

Excerpts from Jeremy Huddleston's message of Tue Oct 13 13:34:52 -0700 2009:
> 
> but since I can't commit to master by policy (merge to master from  
> feature branches), and I don't have an apple feature branch tracking  
> master (since I'm waiting for Peter's documentation on the best  
> practices for that), the only place I could put them in git for you  
> was on my 1.7 branch... but I assure you I'm actually using them on  
> master myself.

Ok, so the other 'official' way to get patches into master is to just
post them to the list using git format-patch and git send-email. I'm
happy using git am -s on patches posted here; it's actually less work
for quick stuff than using git cherry-pick.

  Rebasing rather  
> than merging would make it easier to generate incremental patches, but  
> that is "bad" for people tracking your branch since they can't fast- 
> forward.

Right, rebasing is mean. Of course, I don't quite understand why
merging would generate anything different in the way of a patch, but
perhaps there's something funny with how svn does merges?

-- 
keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20091013/da0efec3/attachment.pgp