Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2009
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 08:55:44PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> 2009/8/26 Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org>:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 03:29:58PM +0200, Rainer Tammer wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> please could someone with commit right apply the attached patch to
> >> maint-5.8 ?
> >> If there will ever be a 5.8.10 then the suidperl problem would be fixed...
> >
> > Whilst agreeing with the intent, I disagree with the mechanism.
> >
> > Someone should cherrypick the correct patch from maint-5.10.
> > They shouldn't cold apply patches to a branch, as git then fails to track
> > what is not yet merged.
>
> Er, I dont get it. Cherry picking /is/ applying patches. If the exact
> same patch is applied by hand to two branches git will not know
> whether it has been done by rebasing, cherry-picking or by hand. It is
> all the same to git (message details aside, which git does not look
> at.)
We can't guarantee that it is the same patch, if it's sent via a mailing
list and applied. (Hateful whitespace). Whereas "please cherry pick ${hash}"
is reliable in the face of format F-word.
> Also, IMO, and I say this only because 5.10.1 is out now, I think
> patches for 5.8 should go to 5.8 first and THEN be applied to blead if
> necessary. In fact, its arguable we should just start collecting topic
This is a patch already in the maint-5.10 branch
> branches. And then rebase them into the other branches as needed. Then
> there is no need for the "which patches have been back ported, etc"
> type tracking. Either the topic branch has been merged/rebased into
> the branch, or it has not.
We substitute it with manually tracking "which branches have been merged"?
Nicholas Clark
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next