Re: Opinions on bug fix organisation

From: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@eudaptics.com>
Date: May 18, 2007, 08:11 UTC
Message-ID: <464D5FC0.3BBF977F@eudaptics.com>
In-Reply-To: <200705162220.15417.andyparkins@gmail.com>

Andy Parkins wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> What is your preference when, for example, you have already merged a
> topic to next but then a bug fix appears?
> 
>  * -- * -- * -- M -- F         * -- * -- * -- M -- m (next)
>                /        or                   /    /
>     B -- * -- *                   B -- * -- * -- F (topic)
> 
> F is certainly most appropriate to be on the topic branch, but we create
> a perhaps excessively verbose extra merge, m.

It depends on whether the topic branch is "closed": A topic branch is "closed" after it is merged into all branches that it is intended to be merged into.

For example, in our setup we sometimes create topic branches off of 'maint' because we want to keep the option alive to merge it into 'maint', although for the time being it is only merged into 'master' (main development). If a bug fix appears, we have to add it to 'topic' and merge into 'master' again (your second example). 'topic' may never make it into 'maint', but this way we keep the option; hence, 'topic' is _not_ "closed", yet.

-- Hannes