Simon Thum <simon.thum@gmx.de> writes:

> Hi all,

Hello,

[...]

> Many projects use the IMO more sane model of release branches (or
> maintenance branches, if you prefer) for major releases. Minor ones
> are tagged on those branches, and back-porting critical fixes is much
> cleaner: Fixes and development go to master, fixes which should be
> back-ported are cherry-picked onto the release branches. When desired,
> a new release is tagged. Releases only come from release branches, of
> course.

It seems that one problem with cherry-picking is the tracking of what is
in which branch and from where it comes.

I'm not a git neither DVCS guru, but daggyfixes[1][2][3] is saner than
cherry-picking.

My 2¢.

Regards.

Footnotes: 
[1]  http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/DaggyFixes

[2]  http://wiki.monotone.ca/DaggyFixes/

[3]  http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2922652/git-is-there-a-way-to-figure-out-where-a-commit-was-cherry-picked-from

-- 
Daniel Dehennin
Récupérer ma clef GPG:
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x6A2540D1