From: Kaartic Sivaraam Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2018 09:57:11 GMT Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2017, #05; Wed, 27) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Wednesday 03 January 2018 02:56 PM, Daniel Knittl-Frank wrote: > On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> * dk/describe-all-output-fix (2017-12-27) 1 commit >> - describe: prepend "tags/" when describing tags with embedded name >> >> An old regression in "git describe --all $annotated_tag^0" has been >> fixed. >> >> Will merge to 'next'. > > Shouldn't this be merged to 'maint' since it is a bugfix (for a long > standing bug)? Or am I misinterpreting the meaning of the 'maint' > branch? > IIUC, the pipe line here is something like, [PATCH] | (after the patch gets some consensus when it's not trivial) | V Merge to 'pu' | (after waiting for some time to see if someone shouts about a build failing or complaining a regression about the PATCH in 'pu') | V Merge to 'next' | (after waiting for some time to see if someone shouts about a build failing or complaining a regression about the PATCH in 'next') | / \ / \ / \ / \ | | (if it's a bugfix for (if it's a new feature or an already released an enhancement) version of Git) | | V V Merge to 'maint' Merge to 'master' Of course 'maint' and 'master' are not diverged completely. They are 'synced' at times. Disclaimer: I won't say I'm 100% correct with the pipeline. This is just what I've understood in observing the mailing list, the "What's cooking" emails and the history of 'git' in the short time that I've been here. So, there are possibilities that I've said something incorrectly. I guess the "Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt" document covers it more comprehensively especially "The Policy" section describes the branches more clearly. -- Kaartic Quote: "Be creative. Be adventurous. Be original. And above all else, be young." - Wonder Woman