Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Thank you, and sorry for the trouble. I am just too used to a Continuous > Integration setting with exactly one integration branch. Fixing problems close to the source (i.e. picking an appropriately aged base) and making sure everthing works near the tip ala CI style are not opposing goals. It just takes an extra step (i.e. trial merge and testing the result) and discipline. Until one gets used to do it so much that one can do in one's sleep, that is ;-) > I will make an effort in the future to figure out the best base branch for > patches that do not apply cleanly on `master` but require more stuff from > `next`/`pu`. The easiest is to leave that to the maintainer most of the time, as that is what maintainers do. Thanks. I really want to see that the runtime prefix stuff mature enough during this cycle, so these follow-up patches are all very much appreciated.
