3 ms·
What holds true for the Linux kernel may not hold true for other repos. In this case, the OP is supporting old Linux releases and remarking how naturally cherr
by CalChris 5y ago
What holds true for the Linux kernel may not hold true for other repos.
In this case, the OP is supporting old Linux releases and remarking how naturally cherry picking can work. LLVM by comparison, doesn't have long-term stable releases. So this conservative approach doesn't necessarily apply for LLVM.
So I like the analysis but I disagree with the generality.
- gumby 5y ago> So I like the analysis but I disagree with the generality. Any organization that releases software revisions has this issue. Yes, we do live in a world where much software is now subject to "continuous release" (either applications which are auto-updated to latest, on phones and some laptop OSes or web-only applications where the latest is pushed to deployment). And indeed the specific issue described here is much less important. However I suspect the majority of software in use is not like that. On the Enterprise side, OSes and applications are updated carefully; an ERP upgrade can be a major undertaking. All sorts of machine control software is ether never upgraded, with limited patching, or treated the same way as other enterprise software. Etc. The difference between the two is why there is both "git flow" and "GitHub flow" -- it's not like one is absolutely superior to the other.
- mojolozzo 5y agoAgreed! The author makes exactly this point towards the end of the post.
- YesThatTom2 5y agoMaybe the author’s next piece should be about people not reading the entire article before they reply. Then there last paragraph would tell them he’ll ignore replies that don’t mention plaid.