Re: Marking changes to be backported

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

> Yet more branches sounds more complicated to me (doesn't that mean you
> need to know when you make a change where it should go?),

One way or another, someone will have to decide which change goes "in
the current pretest" (let's call it 24.4), "in the next bug-fix" (let's
call it 24.5), or "longer term" (let's call it 25.1).

If the committer knows before committing where that change should go,
then having 3 branches and committing to the proper branch is the
best solution.

If that's not the case, then having 3 branches doesn't help, indeed,
since the commit will have to be backported to the proper branch, if
applicable.  Note that this "backporting" will take place regardless of
whether we have 3 branches active at a time or not.  Having 3 branches
active at a time, does allow the backporting to be done any time you
want, whereas sticking to the "trunk vs emacs-24" scheme we have simply
means that some of the backporting will only take place once the
"emacs-24" branch is changed from "branch for 24.4" to "branch for
24.5".


        Stefan