[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] [lldb-dev] GitHub anyone?

[James Y Knight via llvm-dev]

+1 to that. I would strongly suggest that we continue to commit to master
first, like we've always done in llvm.

On Jun 6, 2016 11:44 AM, "Joerg Sonnenberger via cfe-dev" <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:32:45AM -0500, via llvm-dev wrote:
> > My only hesitation with this is that this requires use of cherry-pick,
> > which is not idea.  The way most git repositories work is to put
> > everything that should go into a release branch in the release branch
> > *first* and then merge the release branch to master, ensuring that
> > everything going out in a release will make it into the next release.
> > This is how the gitflow workflow works, for example.
>
> The model of "commit to oldest first" is IMO one of the most stupid
> concepts I have ever seen in git "workflows". It is contrary to the way
> software development works and essentially just a bad workaround for
> broken cherry picks. I've seen more than one project starting to use
> this model due to advocacy after deciding to use git, stumble around
> with it for a release or two and then going back to a normal release
> management approach. Even the argument you have presented here does not
> make sense to me. Just because a change has been committed to a release
> branch, doesn't mean it won't get replaced later.
>
> Joerg
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160606/04dd20c6/attachment.html>