master missing 2.064 branch commit

[Brad Anderson]

On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:48:18 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
> On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:11:29 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
>> Was the 2.064 branch never merged back into master after 
>> release?
>
> Looks like there are eight commits missing in master.
>
> $ git cherry -v upstream/master upstream/2.064
>
> + bafe0cbda4d6da9efae971b6496791e07ceb5215 Merge pull request 
> #2666 from 9rnsr/fix11256
> + 44d568a7f83a43d6bbd31cbcfcf194da39a3beb7 Merge pull request 
> #2665 from 9rnsr/fix9665
> + 2d11aa4311eb2356c759dcd5fa38b046adbb11de New sc.ini with 
> expanded 64-bit support
> + 106b7262f65c4642a3cf6bb73bb54dbcd81f0f28 Merge pull request 
> #2681 from 9rnsr/fix11269
> + bb2a71ce1f67ab8074b22ad77414094319dc4a37 Merge pull request 
> #2684 from eco/new-sc.ini
> + eca33570d98bd30f91b72ac9f43fac9f6fdc2dec Merge pull request 
> #2690 from 9rnsr/fix_dtors
> + 7e607df53d4bcb4c0f9dce8828083f3aa4997d0b Merge pull request 
> #2661 from WalterBright/fix11239
> + 273baf36ccd718749f4f68c1d11473a64f473211 Merge pull request 
> #2701 from dawgfoto/fix11237
>
> I excluded commits with equivalent commits (- prefixed commits 
> from cherry).

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3080 fixes the 
sc.ini issue.  I checked one of these other commits and it seems 
master has the relevant changes so maybe whatever approach is 
being used make changes in both branches is incompatible with git 
cherry.

In any case, the release branches should definitely be merged 
back into master after the release is done so release branch 
changes are never lost.