release maintenance vs. release engineering (was: configuring cherry-pick to always use -x?)
- From
Adam Monsen <haircut@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 15, 2011, 21:03 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4D5AEA2F.9000606@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <4D5A401B.1050103@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Michael J Gruber wrote:
> I don't quite understand how cherry picks could conflict less then > merges if the release branch contains fixes only.
The last time I experienced a painful merge from f-release to master, it was because some files had been culled from master but left extant on f-release. Not too hard to resolve, actually. But I really only needed one change pulled into master, and when I cherry picked instead of merging the whole branch, there were no conflicts, and master ended up containing exactly what I wanted.
Show 5 quoted lines
> My impression is that "f-release" actually > mixes release engineering and maintenance. Two possible remedies: > > - Separate release engineering from maintenance and merge only the > latter to master
Ah, thank you! This is invaluable advice. I think I'll go with this option since mixing release engineering and maintenance is exactly what I'm doing. Hopefully it's worth the added complexity of having another public branch.
I pushed an example to https://github.com/meonkeys/releaseBranchDemo that I'll share with my developers.
"git merge -sours" will definitely be something useful to add to the quiver too.