On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 08:55 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:02:45AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:27 +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote: > > > I'm sorry but the reason is that people don't know git workflows. > > > > I guess it depends on what is the maintainer preferred workflow. > > > > I personally hate git merge, especially for stuff so simple as fedora > > trees. It gives no advantages I can see to the way I work and causes > > quite a lot of bad side-issues. > > > > [..] > > > I've found git cherry-pick hard to use compared to git merge -- but then > again, I'm using cherry-pick to actually cherry-pick; not keep two branches > in sync. > > So if my usual workflow is commit to master, test, commit, test, then > make fX equivalent to master and build there, what is the cherry-pick way to > do that simple task? > > git merge way would be: > > $ git checkout f16 > $ git merge master > > which seems very simple and very suited for this particular workflow. As I've understood the thread so far that's fine - so long as you actually want master and f16 to be the same, of course. I'm not sure what you're supposed to do when master has a later version of the package than f16, but you want to introduce some other change to both branches, for e.g. My problem came in the case where someone has already *not* done this - they've updated f16 separately from, and more than, master, and I wanted to get them back in sync. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
