Re: Any chance for a Git v2.1.5 release?

> On Feb 26, 2015, at 12:54, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> "Kyle J. McKay" <mackyle@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I would like to better understand how the various heads are
>>> maintained.  I've read MaintNotes and I've got the concepts, but I'm
>>> still a little fuzzy on some details.  It looks to me like all 
>>> topics
>>> still only in pu after master has been updated are then rebased onto
>>> the new master and then pu is rebuilt.
>>
>> Topics in 'pu' not yet in 'next' _can_ be rebased, but unless there
>> is a good reason to do so, I wouldn't spend extra cycles necessary
>> to do such thing.  I even try to keep the same base when replacing
>> the contents of a branch with a rerolled series.  For example, today
>> I have this:
>>
>>    $ git config alias.lgf
>>    log --oneline --boundary --first-parent
>>    $ git lgf master..nd/slim-index-pack-memory-usage
>>    3538291 index-pack: kill union delta_base to save memory
>>    7b4ff41 FIXUP
>>    45b6b71 index-pack: reduce memory footprint a bit
>>    - 9874fca Git 2.3
>>
>> and Duy has a newer iteration of it starting at $gmane/264429.  What
>> I would do, after saving these patches in a mbox +nd-index-pack,
>> would be to
>>
>>    $ git checkout 9874fca
>>    $ git am -s3c ./+nd-index-pack
>>    $ git show-branch HEAD nd/slim-index-pack-memory-usage
>>    ... compare corresponding changes between the old and the new
>>    ... until I am satisified; otherwise I may tweak the new one
>>    $ git rebase -i 9874fca
>>    ... and then finally
>>    $ git branch -f nd/slim-index-pack-memory-usage HEAD
>>
>> to update the topic.  Of course, it would be necessary to rebuild
>> 'pu' by merging all the topics that are in it on top of 'master'.
>
> Thanks.  That's helpful.
>
>> After finishing 2.3.0 release, at some point while 'master' is still
>> at 2.3.0, something like this would happen:
>>
>>    $ git branch -m maint maint-2.2
>>    $ git branch maint master
>
> So the reason I don't notice force-updates to maint when this happens 
> is because of the "Sync with maint" commits that make sure the new 
> maint contains the old one.
>
>>> Also, how do you handle a down merge to maint when you have this:
>>>
>>> * (master)
>>> * merge topic foo
>>> |\
>>> | * topic foo
>>> |/
>>> * c
>>> * b
>>> * a
>>> * (tag: vX.X.X, maint)
>>> *
>>
>> I don't, and this is done by making sure I do not get into such a
>> situation in the first place.
>>
>> A general rule of thumb when applying a set of patches that are
>> fixes eventually worth having in older maintenance tracks is to find
>> the oldest maintenance branch and apply them there.
>
> If I were to keep a maint-lts branch somewhere I would need to cherry- 
> pick topics with desired fixes that fall into that situation.  That's 
> what I expected but when you mentioned down merging the fixes I wanted 
> to make sure I wasn't overlooking something.

>
> I'll see about setting up a maint-lts in a local git repository clone 
> and tracking LTS fixes.  If I'm able to keep that going without it 
> becoming a black-hole of temporal need that sucks the life right out 
> of me  ;)  then perhaps we can have a discussion at a future date 
> about what would be needed for you to consider pulling from it and 
> issuing LTS releases off it.  :)
>
> -Kyle
> --