Re: Managing multiple branches in git

Andres Freund wrote:
> On 06/02/2009 06:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> At the same time, I don't really buy the theory that relating commits on
>> different branches via merges will work.  In my experience it is very
>> seldom the case that a patch applies to each back branch with no manual
>> effort whatever, which is what I gather the merge functionality could
>> help with.  So maybe there's not much help to be had on this ...
> You can do a merge and change the commit during that - this way you get 
> the merge tracking information correct although you did a merge so that 
> further merge operations can consider the specific change to be applied 
> on both/some/all branches.
> This will happen by default if there is a merge conflict or can be 
> forced by using the --no-commit option to merge.

Yeah, that should work fine.

However, handling fixes to multiple branches by merging the release 
branches to master seems awkward to me. A merge will merge *all* commits 
in the release branch. Including "stamp 8.3.1" commits, and fixes for 
issues in release branches that are not present in master.

Cherry-picking seems like the best approach.

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com