From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13791 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2014 12:37:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 13753 invoked by uid 89); 22 Jan 2014 12:37:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:37:33 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0MCbU5Q026134 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:37:30 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0MCbTOk002264; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:37:30 -0500 Message-ID: <52DFBB88.1030104@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:37:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: reject merges on gdb release branches? References: <20140122051133.GB4762@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20140122051133.GB4762@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00852.txt.bz2 On 01/22/2014 05:11 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > We are already rejecting merge commits on branch master. > > I propose we do the same for the gdb-7.7 branch, and generally > speaking on all GDB release branches, just to make sure that > people don't accidently push a merge when they meant to cherry-pick. > Thoughts? +1. -- Pedro Alves