On Friday 2008-11-28 20:37, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> When you graph git://dev.medozas.de/pam_mount with `gitk --all` for example, >> you may find that practice between 0.40--0.43 or 0.45--0.47. > >[...] Another thing that bothers me when merging from stable to >master is that I'm not used to developing fixes on the stable >branch.
The motivation to manage it like this for pam_mount was that some past releases had rather many regressions which prompted me to do a bugfix-only branch. >[...] Still, doing that makes history claim to have another 140some >changes incorporated which aren't in fact there. If the code is already gone in master, that should be fine. It would usually indicate that the 140 fixes have been incorporated one way or another (and if that's replacing it by something new and shiny). Alternatively, you could run a 3-branch setup — master, fixestoboth and fixestocurrent, and only do the merge operations master<-fixestoboth and fixestocurrent<-fixestoboth to avoid "ours"-merges.
