Hi Pascal!

Wow, these are really really excellent catches! But, some of these are only on the master branch, and others are on both 2.0 and on master. If I patch into 2.0, then some changes won't apply, and if we merge into master, things won't be fixed in the 2.0 branch.

So, can you re-create a PR first against the 2.0 branch with just the fixes that apply to 2.0 and then another against the master branch with just the master-specific fixes?

Thanks!

Ping @pborreli :)

don't get why you don't merge it, then we will see for old branches

@pborreli if you make a patch to the 2.0 branch @weaverryan will merge it with the 2.0, 2.1 and master branch. This means with 1 PR request we have updated every version of the docs.

If you have something only for the 2.1 branch you will need to merge this with the 2.1 branch and make a patch for the 2.1 branch, which would be merged with 2.1 and master, because the master branch is based on the 2.1 branch.

If you have something 2.2 only you make a patch for the master branch and it will only be merged in the master branch.

Why we, I mean @weaverryan and all other github users, use this technique is because this is how GIT works.

@wouterj thanks for the feedback, you mean i can make a patch for the 2.0 branch with some of the changes that only apply to new stuff inside 2.1 branch ?

@pborreli no, you can't.

If you have found some typo's in the 2.0 branch it will be in the 2.1 and master branch to, because the 2.1 branch is based on the 2.0 branch (they have cloned the 2.0 branch and began editing it for Symfony2.1) and the master(2.2) branch is based on the 2.1 branch.

That said, if you have a typo in the 2.0 branch you will create a patch for the 2.0 branch. It will be merged with all 3 branches: (-> means 'merged into')

patch -> 2.0
2.0 -> 2.1
2.1 -> master

If you have found a typo in the 2.1 branch you have to make a patch for the 2.1 branch. That will be merged into the 2 latest branches:

patch -> 2.1
2.1 -> master

You should create a patch for all typo's found in the 2.0 branch and another patch for all typo's in the 2.1 (excluding those who are in the patch for the 2.0 branch)

when i submitted this PR there was only master and 2.0, that's why i asked @weaverryan and now everything is so complicated ... fixing typo in master looks so logical to me i don't get all the extra work needed

Hi Pascal!

I've worked your typo-fixes into the 2.0 and 2.1 branches and mentioned you in my commits :).

Thanks again for your fixes!

thank you