Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> * Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch> [090602 10:23]:
>> As mentioned before, I'd personally favor *all* of the back-ports to
>> actually be merges of some sort, because that's what they effectively
>> are. However, that also bring up the question of how we are going to do
>> back-patches in the future with git.
>
> Well, if people get comfortable with it, I expect that "backports" don't
> happenen.. Bugs are fixed where they happen, and "merged" forward into
> all affected "later development" based on the bugged area.
I imagine the closest thing to existing practices would be that people
would to use "git-cherry-pick -x -n" to backport only the commits they
wanted from the current branch into the back branches.
AFAICT, this doesn't record a merge in the GIT history, but looks a lot
like the linear history from CVS - with the exception that the comment
added by "-x" explicitly refers to the exact commit from the main branch.
