Stable branch reformatting issues
chase.douglas at canonical.com
Mon Mar 19 15:01:01 PDT 2012
On 03/19/2012 12:06 PM, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
> Ok, well I'd like to definitely do this with 1.12 since it will make cherry picking from master *much* less painful.
> Not doing it on 1.11 and 1.10 will mean that it will be difficult to cherry-pick back to those branches (which means they just won't get certain fixes that they previously would have due to lack of manpower). So as I see it, we either leave stable-1.10-branch exactly where it is from now until eternity because we don't reformat it to take cherry picks or we reformat it to allow it to take cherry picks. If you want the former, then there's nothing really stopping you from "pretending" and using the <reformat commit>^ commit as your base.
If I understand correctly, you're basically saying that you are
unwilling to maintain stable branches that are not reformatted. Since
you are the one donating time to maintaining the stable branches, it's
up to you how you want to do it. I just have my doubts on how much it
will be of use to downstreams.
There's still some use in a reformatted tree even if some downstreams
don't reformat: keeping in sync with upstream changes. We can take
individual changes from the stable tree and deformat them, which will
ensure that we have the same fixes as everyone else.
More information about the xorg-devel