On 21/04/2021 19:05, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Luke Diamand <luke@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
2. Merge
...
If I do "git merge bugfix" onto relbranch, then as well as getting X,
I also get B and C, which I don't want.
This won't work exactly for the reason why you want to do #3 below.
3. Always start from a merge base
I could tell people that if they are making a bugfix that will need to
go onto multiple branches, that they need to start from some common
merge base, and then merge to the final target branches.
...
And invariably people will start out thinking their change is not a
bugfix, but a new feature, and then find that actually we need the new
feature on the release branch.
4. Use gerrit change-ids
We could adopt gerrit change-ids. It feels like this is kind of a
kludge, but perhaps it's the only thing that really works?
Is there something better?
Just to throw another in for completeness (not claiming which one is
better and which one is worse):
5. Primarily use #3 to merge, but use "cherry-pick -x" when
replaying a fix that was built on a wrong base, and tweak the
procedure to find out "is this fix already on branch X?" to also
pay attention to it.
It is no worse than #4, I would think, as both approaches would need
to scan the commit log messages to find the commits that are not in
the ancestry chain that participated to the branch.
With the gerrit change-id I can enforce that every commit will always
have a change-id - either a brand new one, or one that's preserved from
another commit.
If I just rely on people to use "git cherry-pick -x" then they will
certainly forget, or do it twice, because people make mistakes.
