On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:53 PM, "Roy Stogner" <royst...@ices.utexas.edu> wrote:
> A) given another patch designed specifically to fix the failed tests, > B) reverted to any other newer-than-Master revision that hasn't been > tested (in cases where multiple patches were added too fast for > buildbot to test) > C) reverted completely by a developer who can't fix someone else's > breakage but wants to then test his own new patch. I really like that approach for the core development team that has write access to the repository. I was going to suggest we have a 'stable' which tracks 'master', but the same idea.. A nice thing about either approach is that the blessed branch could contain all the generated automake files, and we could keep those out of the daily (or hourly!) churn branch. Rebasing would cause no conflicts wrt generated files that lived only on the derived branch, AFAICT. Would that be an acceptable compromise? -Ben ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d _______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
