On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 4:50 PM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Actually, I think I recommended (through implication) that we should not > use the 'dev' branch, but rather a custom, per-PR branch. A single dev > branch does not work for the reasons I mention above. The worst is that > many people are using the dev you cannot squash merge a change onto master.
I concur. It should *not* go to a big shared 'dev' branch. Individual branch for that purpose is much better. > And the changes would be moved to master with no testing. No one is > doing any manual testing and there is no purpose in maintaining > potentially hundreds of changes on individual branches. It does not > serve either the project or the user. Code won't be completely untested: * Over time we will gain buildbots and whatnot, and these will perform ongoing automated testing. * Any interested community members can track master and put the latest changes through their paces (I generally build my configurations each day with the latest changes to make sure that nothing that is important to me is broken). * Part of the release process (which as not really been addressed yet) will involve some kind of a "soak period" to allow contributors, downstream, and any other interested parties to run tests (automated and/or manual) and report issues. Between all of these (and committers who are world-class developers) I think the code will get pretty good review and testing. Happy New Year! Nathan
