From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C05F1F428 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 19:57:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752592AbeAET5I (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jan 2018 14:57:08 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:35430 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751814AbeAET5H (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jan 2018 14:57:07 -0500 Received: (qmail 26891 invoked by uid 109); 5 Jan 2018 19:55:48 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 19:55:48 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 8510 invoked by uid 111); 5 Jan 2018 19:57:39 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 14:57:39 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 05 Jan 2018 14:57:05 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 14:57:05 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Isaac Shabtay , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Bug report: git clone with dest Message-ID: <20180105195705.GA5217@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20180103222821.GA32287@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20180104040124.GA11626@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 11:53:50AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > They haven't even been reviewed yet. If they get good feedback, then the > > maintainer will pick them up, then merge them to 'next', and then > > eventually to 'master', after which they'd become part of the next > > major release. For a pure bug-fix, it may instead go to 'maint' and > > become part of the next minor release. > > Even a pure bug-fix, unless it is something no longer needed on the > 'master' front, goes thru 'pu'->'next'->'master' avenue first, and > is recorded in the RelNotes with the notes like "(merge d45420c1c8 > jk/abort-clone-with-existing-dest later to maint)" when it happens. > > side note: in fact "grep -e 'later to maint' RelNotes" is > how I remind myself what to merge down to 'maint'; the > actual procedure is a bit more involved (those interested in > the details can find the 'ML' script on the 'todo' branch; > its name stands for 'merge later') > > Later, after not hearing from people that the "fix" breaks things, > the topic is also mreged to 'maint' and becomes part of the next > minor release. Out of curiosity, did this change at some point? I thought the process used to be to merge to maint, and then pick up topics in master by merging maint to master. -Peff