Re: [O] Upstream synchronization documentation

[Rasmus Pank Roulund]

Kyle Meyer <address@hidden> writes:

>> Whereas in your text I think it is the other way round, isn't it?
>> (I.e. the Emacs branch is more stable, and you are talking about
>> porting a fix that someone has made in that branch to the Org master.)
>> So perhaps 'forward port' would be clearer?
>
> I suspect that Org's maint (where the Emacs changes land) is generally
> more stable than the Org in Emacs's master, but, yes, Emacs's version is
> the older version.  (Well, with v9.0.9 just synced the versions match,
> but maint still has quite a few more commits.)
>
> Since before I took over "backporting" changes from the Emacs repo, it's
> been referred to as this.  Although I agree it isn't great word choice,
> I'd prefer that we remain consistent so that, for example, "git log -i
> --grep=backport" remains informative.
>
> But if people think using "backport" is too confusing, I'm OK switching
> to another term.  Of "forward port" and "propagate" (suggested in this
> thread by Eric), I prefer "propagate"---or maybe just "port", though
> grepping for that might lead to too many false positives.  And if we
> stick with "backport", it still might be a good idea to clarify in
> README_maintainer that we're abusing the term.

So at least I’m not crazy for "coming up with" it backporting!

So I will keep calling it "backporting" but explain that it is more like
propagating changes from the Emacs repository (back) to the Org
repository.

Thanks,
Rasmus

-- 
Dung makes an excellent fertilizer