Re: Changes to the branching workflow

[Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>]

Am Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 03:17:34PM -0500 schrieb Leo Famulari:
> What do you think? Should we stick with the plan I wrote in the manual?
> Or change it?

From what I understood of the discussion, I would also go with Tobias's and
Efraim's suggestion: There is a core-updates branch that is constantly open
and where people can push; this does not seem to leave a possibility of
mistake, almost by definition. Then we can branch off core-updates-frozen,
which is frozen :), except for cherry-picked bug fixing commits and merges
from master. Once it is finished, it is merged into master and deleted.

The one thing where maybe problems can occur is that now there is the
core-updates branch that has wildly advanced, and that needs to somehow be
tamed to go with the new master branch. But the situation would be the same
if it were called core-updates-next, I suppose.

Technically speaking, this is the same as your suggestion, Leo, but it
avoids the constant dance between core-updates, that disappears and
reappears under the name core-updates-next, that disappears and reappears
under the name core-updates, and so on.

Andreas