On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Sergey Sharybin <[email protected]> wrote: > I would say: > > - Being able to filter in dev.b.o is omsething we must have. I've created a > quick patch to filter differencial revisions by project [1]. It was > rejected by upstream because phabricator team wants to have general way to > filter all objects which depends on project without having duplicated code > all over the place [2]. > > It'll take some time still i think, but meanwhile i don't see anything bad > in applying D11999 for our installation for until generic filtering is > implemented in an upstream. Likely some latest updates from upstream allows > to get rid of other hacks in our copy :) > > - I still think we should allow having staging-PATCH branches for > non-trivial changes at least. WOuld be kinda temp- but we'll know those > branches are subject to be merged sooner when the git is open. > > [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D11999 > [2] https://secure.phabricator.com/T5595
+1, on all points. @z0r, re: git flow, agree its good to have unstable development in feature-branches, this is what we already do in many cases (though not for smaller features/changes) so it can work well to do this more too. But not keen on having a development branch only for the weeks we're in bcon3/4. _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
