Junio C Hamano wrote: > Todd Zullinger <tmz@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Since this is only in next and the first patch of the series >> targets a "breakage" in 2.49.0-rc0, should I split the >> latter commits into a separate series based on next or is >> ef18273a2d9 likely to be merged into master before 2.49.0? > > ef18273a (Merge branch 'ps/meson-contrib-bits' into next, > 2025-02-27) WILL NEVER be merged into master in any timeframe. > Doing so will pull all the other merge commits on 'next' into > 'master'. Thank you for patiently correcting and explaining that. I did intend it to be as you described, rather than merging the merge commit. But I was both lazy and sloppy with my wording, unfortunately. :/ > According to tinyurl.com/gitcal, we plan to tag -rc1 on Mar 4th and > -rc2 on Mar 10th. The topic ps/meson-contrib-bits will have spent 7 > calendar days in 'next' before we tag -rc2, so unless people find > issues with the topic while in 'next', it is expected to land before > the 10th. > > Creating a merge of ps/meson-contrib-bits topic into the 'master' > (you do this yourself locally), and building your series on that > merge commit (and you send these patches to the list, saying that > they are based on such a merge in the cover letter) would be the > most appropriate in this case, I think. Sounds good. I'll send a v2 with that shape momentarily. -- Todd
