Re: Changes to the branching workflow

[Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>]

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 12:24:50PM +0100, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
> Am 12.02.21 um 21:49 schrieb Andreas Enge:
> >  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.
> 
> This is what I understood, too.
> 
> > 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.
> It's even worse: When removing staging and core-updates at Savannah, this
> does not effect local copies. Thus one might push these branches to
> Savannah, which might lead to a lot of confusion and trouble.

Alright.

Due to overwhelming demand both on and off list, the bikeshed has been
repainted.