From: Jeff Trawick <>
Date: 04/10/2012 09:18 AM
Subject: Re: backports/merges

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Jeff Trawick <> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <> wrote:
>> On 4/9/2012 11:04 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>>> On Monday 09 April 2012, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>>>> Do you disagree with the procedure and/or my attempt to describe
>>>>> the "normal" way this is handled?
>>>> No, I agree and I think it is more useful to include the CHANGES
>>>> entry  in the backport commit than to split it in a second commit.
>>>> At least that's what I tried to do in the past influenced by
>>>> following the list and commit messages. Sometimes the CHANGES
>>>> entry either is forgotten during the backport commit or postponed
>>>> by a differing personal preference and is then added soon as a
>>>> separate commit which I think is less useful but still acceptable.
>>> +1
>> +1; and ++1 for formalizing this at apr.a.o/dev/
> I'll do that.  (No, really!)

Wow, I actually found a round tuit for something I said I'd do :)