Git merge workflow: reverse it?
boud at valdyas.org
Wed Aug 26 08:59:16 BST 2020
On Tuesday, 25 August 2020 23:44:02 CEST you wrote:
> Or you can merge stable to master and be sure you won't forget anything.
> Of course if master changed a lot you can't (easily) do that. But we
> have a lot of repos that don't change very often and merging stable to
> master works very well with them.
> The problem is we don't always have a maintainer. A lot of apps are
> community-maintained and if we wouldn't merge stable to master before a
> new release we would reintroduce fixed bugs quite often.
Basically, what you're saying is that KDE releases a lot of software that just basically never changes, and apart from some translation work is actually unmaintained.
I don't think that those projects, or rather repositories, since if there's no work being done, it's hard to see that as a project, should shape policy.
If a repo can get by with just merging stable to master, I don't think it's seeing meaningful development -- why should it even be released?
More information about the kde-core-devel