Linus Arver <linusa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> * An very old but still severe bug in tagged versions would want to >> be fixed ideally not on top of 'maint' but on top of the latest >> tagged version in the same maintenance track. E.g. if the commit >> X introduced the bug, you may ask "git describe --contains X" the >> oldest version the commit appears in, say "v2.30.0-rc2-gXXXXXX". >> Then you would run "git checkout -b fix v2.30.9" to start the >> branch to fix it. > > In this example, are we using v2.30.9 as a starting point, not v2.30.0 > because v2.30.9 is the latest tagged version that is in 'maint'? Yes, the example assumes that the last maintenance release for v2.30.x series is v2.30.9. But this kind of fix happening is sufficiently rare and I do not think regular contributors should have to worry too much about it. If the affected area had tons of changes between v2.30.9 and 'master', a fix on such an old base would require a lot of work merging upwards, adjusting to newer codebase, and it only makes sense to go that length for high value fixes (aka "security patch"). The rules that apply for such a fix would be vastly different (e.g. the review may be done behind closed doors with small number of reviewers, not on the public list). > I think this nugget of knowledge should be included in a v3 of this > series. Will update. So, while it may help improve understanding of the philosophy behind the regular procedure to know, I am not sure it is worth spending a lot of lines to describe it when we are giving a piece of advice for general "bugfix and/or new development". Some bugs are simply not worth the trouble of going back for more than two maintenance tracks to fix. Thanks.
