Stable branch reformatting issues

[Chase Douglas]

On 03/19/2012 04:38 PM, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Chase Douglas <chase.douglas at canonical.com> wrote:
>> On 03/19/2012 12:06 PM, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> If server-1.10-branch and server-1.11-branch (ie: the "old" branches) don't get reformatted, they'll get less cherry-picks (just based on economics), and I feel that will be of bigger impact downstream.

Fair enough.

>> 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.
> 
> Yeah... we can certainly have a server-1.11.4-branch (or some other name) which allows you to maintain a centralized branch pre-reformatting.  It will have less cherry-picks than the main server-1.11-branch (or at least lag behind it a bit), but it may be helpful to distros in your situation.

I think that's a bit overkill. If we are going to reformat the 1.11 and
earlier branches, then we might as well leave it at that and let the
downstreams worry about it. Or, actually have someone maintain a
pre-formatted branch. However, adding another level of stable branches
(and releases?) that differ from the main stable branches could get very
confusing.

-- Chase