Re: is core-updates still a thing?

[Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e@gmail.com>]

On 9/24/23 1:27 AM, Andy Tai wrote:
> Hi, curious if core-updates still a thing?    There seems a branch by
> that name and the manual still says patches causing large number of
> rebuilds should go to core-updates, at least for these not aiming at a
> specific feature branch.
I have the same question.

My understanding is that feature-branches are now the canonical way to 
work on things, and core-updates has become just another kind of 
feature-branch for landing groups of large changes that don't really fit 
anywhere; the difference being that it's now more ephemeral and "as 
needed" instead of the default for large changes.

Do I have that right?

I guess we need to update the manual?