Two branch rules the v0.1.0 release turned up - #158
Merged
Conversation
Signed-off-by: WaylandYang <wayland0916@gmail.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Cutting v0.1.0 exposed two gaps in the branch flow, both of them maintainer-side.
Back-merge after a release.
dev → mainwas merged with a merge commit so the individual pull requests stay readable inmain's history, and that commit exists only onmain.mainthen reads as one ahead while the trees are byte-identical, and the gap would grow by one every release. #157 corrected it this time; the guide now says to do it every time.Urgent fixes still go through
dev. The guide described the normal path but left the shortcut open. A PR opened straight againstmainis the only thing that makes the two branches genuinely diverge, rather than differ by a bookkeeping node.Both languages.