On Wednesday 18 August 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 08:35:20PM CEST: > > On Wednesday 18 August 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > Ideally, you'd commit this to a temporary branch based off of > > > the patch that introduced the regression, and merge that > > > branch into maint. If we follow this strategy consistently, > > > then there one can simply merge the temp branch into all > > > branches that have the parent. > > > > Smart. Would make another nice addition for HACKING ;-) > > Already in HACKING, well, sort-of: > > * For bug fixes of long-standing bugs, it may be useful to commit > them to a new branch based off of the commit that introduced the > bug, and merge this bugfix branch into active branches that > descend from the buggy commit. Ah-ah! *Now* this makes sense! Though, it's not as clear as it could be for "novices" (count me among them)...
What about this less terse and slighty extended formulation? * When fixing a bug (especially a long-standing one), it may be useful to commit the fix to a new branch based off the commit that introduced the bug. Then this bugfix branch can be merged into all the active branches descending from the buggy commit. This offers a way to fix the bug easily and consistently. I will propose a pach shortly in a new thread. > > BTW, how should I call that temporary branch? > > Dunno; whatever you like. fix-depcomp-tests? I name them fix-* in > some projects. It doesn't really matter for anything but the > merge log entry. Well, I'd rather avoid to have `merge branch foo' in the log :-) I'll settle with the existing name of my branch: `fix-decomp-tests-regression'. Anyway, done the fixing, the merging, and the pushing. Regards, Stefano
