Git commit in all available branches

[Jeffrey Fearn]

Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:07:17 +1000
> Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 13:56 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:03:04 +0400
>>> "Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)" <forum at hubbitus.com.ru> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  In most cases I try sync all branches if there no real reasons to
>>>> make differences.
>>> ...snip... 
>>>
>>> I would hope a real reason would be that the update is not a
>>> security or bugfix only update, right? 
>> IMHO it depends on what kind of software it is.
>>
>> I push releases of applications to all current Fedora releases. The
>> users want the new features, it's what they have been bugging me for.
>>
>> If I was working on glibc or X I might not do that, but applications
>> should be pushed back unless there is some system level constraint
>> preventing it.
>>
>> So I too would like a "commit to all branches" or "sync all branches
>> to this one" command. 
> 
> If it doesn't change the user experience, and fixes bugs or security
> issues, then great. ;) If it's a major update which does change the
> user experience, breaks ABI/API, or adds a bunch of new functionality,
> then please don't. 

If you want ABI stability buy RHEL or use CentOS, because clearly your 
requirements are completely different from the requirements of most of 
the users of my software. They'd go batty if I tried to tell them they 
had to use rawhide to get a new feature.

Cheers, Jeff.

-- 
Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com>
Software Engineer
Engineering Operations
Red Hat, Inc
Freedom ... courage ... Commitment ... ACCOUNTABILITY