Build Master: Progress toward 2.065

[Dicebot]

On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:25:02 UTC, David Nadlinger 
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:01:50 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 12:57:10 UTC, Andrew Edwards 
>> wrote:
>>> I which case, updating with master will be counter 
>>> productive. Thanks for the heads up. I will just have to rely 
>>> on the devs to cherry-pick what was not originally included 
>>> in the branch.
>>
>> cherry-picking is discouraged in that scenario as it will 
>> complicate merging 2.065 branch back into master after 
>> release. rebase sounds like best fit.
>
> I'd argue that the release branches should be considered public 
> history and thus never rebased. You can always just merge 
> master into them...
>
> David

Can't agree. Release _tags_ are public. Release branches exist 
primarily to organize development. Merging master into release 
branch working on it and then merging all back to master creates 
very messy making it much harder to say what commits where 
introduces by release process.