Andres Freund wrote:
> On 06/02/2009 06:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> At the same time, I don't really buy the theory that relating commits on
>> different branches via merges will work. In my experience it is very
>> seldom the case that a patch applies to each back branch with no manual
>> effort whatever, which is what I gather the merge functionality could
>> help with. So maybe there's not much help to be had on this ...
> You can do a merge and change the commit during that - this way you get
> the merge tracking information correct although you did a merge so that
> further merge operations can consider the specific change to be applied
> on both/some/all branches.
> This will happen by default if there is a merge conflict or can be
> forced by using the --no-commit option to merge.
Yeah, that should work fine.
However, handling fixes to multiple branches by merging the release
branches to master seems awkward to me. A merge will merge *all* commits
in the release branch. Including "stamp 8.3.1" commits, and fixes for
issues in release branches that are not present in master.
Cherry-picking seems like the best approach.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
