Subject: Re: candidate branches for `maint`, was Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] Simple IPC Mechanism

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 11:55:39 -0800

Johannes Schindelin <[email-masked]> writes:

>> Are there other topics that deserve to be in 'maint' that are
>> "obviously correct" people can think of?
>
> I looked over the branches merged into `master` that are not in `maint`,
> and from a cursory look, these seem to be good candidates:
> ...
> There are also a couple test updates that might be nice to have in
> `maint`:
> ...
> Finally, there are documentation updates that I would probably merge, if I
> was tasked with updating `maint`:
> ...

Your list more or less matches what the ML (merge later) script on
the todo/ branch produces when it is fed the RelNotes (the script
just greps for "merge laster to maint" comments and shows the result
in way a bit easier to use for me).

The ones that are in RelNotes but not in your list are 

    ab/branch-sort # 7 (11 days ago) 
    ar/t6016-modernise # 1 (3 weeks ago) 
    dl/p4-encode-after-kw-expansion # 1 (3 weeks ago) 
    fc/t6030-bisect-reset-removes-auxiliary-files # 1 (4 weeks ago) 
    ma/doc-pack-format-varint-for-sizes # 1 (3 weeks ago) 
    ma/more-opaque-lock-file # 5 (11 days ago) 
    ma/t1300-cleanup # 3 (3 weeks ago) 
    zh/arg-help-format # 2 (3 weeks ago) 

and I think all of them are safe to merge down.

Thanks for being an independent source I can rely on to sanity check
what is in RelNotes.  Very much appreciated.