On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 8:39 AM Agostino Sarubbo <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On giovedì 22 aprile 2021 12:02:20 CEST Michał Górny wrote: > > Well, I suppose scanning the dev branch would be preferable over > > the master branch. In reality, they are usually only a few hours apart > > but it might be useful to know of new breakage in dev before it's merged > > to master. > > > > It would be ideal if you could do a switch when master and dev are > > in sync, and just copy the state from master. > > Hi, > > I think that your approach could be generally valid but for this use case I'm > against because of the following: > > 1) The approach is valid in cases like our github PRs and the bot that > approves the commit. In this case, who moves the commit between branches does > not know if the scan has been done or not. > > 2) I don't see the reason to scan against something that we don't know if will > be the same in master branch > > 3) We are not doing a similar approach for ::gentoo so I don't see why do this > for GURU since, after all, it is an overlay > > 4) Packages in master are supposed to be tested at least from 2 different > people (who made the commit in dev and who moves the commit to master) so it > means less bugspam >
Perhaps another approach could be to add a third branch, "staging". Any reviewers could move the appropriate ebuilds to "staging" once all the reviews and discussions are done but before moving to "master" In fact, probably a github action could be set up to automatically move to "master" after the CI stuff passes.
