On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 09:59:42PM +0000, J-P Nurmi wrote: > > On 16 Jan 2017, at 16:24, Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenha...@qt.io> > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:37:06PM +0000, J-P Nurmi wrote: > >> Early feedback from the CI system would be invaluable. > >> > > note that nowadays you can explicitly schedule CI runs on arbitrary > > pending changes. > > of course, that's not the only _possible_ reason for wanting a branch, > > but if it's the only _actual_ reason, then it may make sense to change > > the plan. > > > I’m expecting the refactoring work to generate quite a large amount of > commits. I’d prefer to do it in small steps to reduce the risk of breaking > things. This would be a throw-away branch. No merging to the mainline, but > ready features would be picked by hand and submitted for review. > fair enough. note that you're adding to the CI load, so try to batch your integrations in as far as reasonable. as always, actually. you didn't specify the source, so i assumed dev.
speaking of how hard is to get branches: the policy is quite clear that done (and abandoned) branches should be deleted (or moved to a hidden namespace, if you insist on archiving your throw-away branch). they aren't, they are piling up. what exactly do you expect in return? _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
