Simon Thum<address@hidden> writes:
Whether multiple branches are involved depends mainly on what releases
one intends to maintain. The nice thing in the model is the gradual
maintenance: A really critical fix could see more backports than a
nicety.
Yes. Bastien has to make that decision since he's the one doing the
maintenance.
I like the goal maint is set to achieve, I'm just not convinced
regular merges are a good way to ensure it - after all, merges include
everything in a branch. If there are no doubts about that on your
side, I'm fine.
It was intended as a solution to the problem of either not getting
bugfixes for the latest release or having to live on bleeding edge. It
was too shortlived to judge if it had achieved that goal and how
satisfied people were with it. Bastien is now trying a three-branch
model since he also needs to maintain org within Emacs(*). As long as it
works for him it will work for us, I'd think.
(*) This should provide similar benefits to users as maint was supposed
to, albeit it may not be obvious to users on how to follow that branch.
Regards,
Achim.