| 12 Oct 2025 |
 emily | what if we just used the merge queue to ensure that nothing goes into master or staging-next that won't cleanly merge into the branches after it? | 15:55:17 |
| emily | and switched things around so that, if you would cause a merge conflict on a later branch, you instead merge it into the later branch | 15:55:34 |
 K900 | That is going to completely stall some PRs | 15:55:39 |
| emily | and then "backport" it to the earlier ones | 15:55:40 |
| K900 | I think | 15:55:43 |
| emily | stall howso? | 15:55:51 |
| K900 | Oh god that's going to be so painful | 15:55:53 |
| emily | why? | 15:55:58 |
| K900 | Because nothing will backport cleanly and then we have to check backports and oof | 15:56:12 |
| emily | it means the conflicts can be resolved per-PR | 15:56:03 |
| emily | rather than all at once | 15:56:08 |
| emily | I don't understand | 15:56:22 |
| emily | that's exactly the case of periodic merges failing | 15:56:26 |
| emily | it would be far more auditable and granular than those | 15:56:35 |
| K900 | I'd much rather resolve the conflicts all at once than have random people make three different PRs and compare them against each other | 15:56:58 |
