gnucash master: Better test for conflict between optimization and FORTIFY_SOURCE
janssens-geert at telenet.be
Mon May 5 14:07:30 EDT 2014
On Monday 05 May 2014 10:16:47 Geert Janssens wrote:
> On Friday 02 May 2014 18:15:19 Mike Alexander wrote:
> > --On May 2, 2014 5:02:45 PM -0400 John Ralls
> > <jralls at code.gnucash.org>>
> > wrote:
> > > Updated via https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commit/8cb391b3
> > > (commit) from https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commit/ac9a6ae6
> > > (commit)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > commit 8cb391b30846f04eb6b874ef6dde723be372b7d0
> > > Author: John Ralls <jralls at ceridwen.us>
> > > Date: Fri May 2 14:02:24 2014 -0700
> > >
> > > Better test for conflict between optimization and
> > > FORTIFY_SOURCE
> > I pushed this to the maint branch too since the previous changes
> > were
> > there.
> > Mike
> Just in case you missed this: now we're in git changes are generally
> pushed to the "oldest" branch first and then merged to "more recent"
> branches. The "oldest" branch in this case is maint since it will
> become 2.6.4, while master will become 2.8.0.
> There are of course situations where we only realize afterwards the
> commit needed to go on an older branch as well in which case
> cherry-pick is the way to go as you did here.
> This will be an interesting test to see how git merge deals with such
> cherry-picked commits the next time maint is merged into master.
Just tested this merge - git is clever enough to detect your cherry-picked commit was already
on master and simply ignored it. That's how we like it :)
More information about the gnucash-devel