Jonas Hahnfeld <[email protected]> writes: > Am Donnerstag, den 21.05.2020, 15:19 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Jonas Hahnfeld <[email protected]> writes: >> > Am Donnerstag, den 21.05.2020, 14:29 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup: >> > > The "traffic jam" problem could be avoided by retaining the option of >> > > pushing to staging. That would occur without CI, but one could >> > > occasionally trigger the merge with CI on staging to have everything in >> > > it migrate to master. Since staging would be used by the more >> > > experienced people desiring to bunch their work before testing, the >> > > triggering could also happen manually by whoever thinks he has pushed >> > > enough stuff to staging to give it a whirl. >> > >> > That's not really how CI works. With our policy of FF merges, what >> > happens if some MR get merged directly to master and some sit in >> > staging? You'd probably rebase staging which triggers another CI >> > pipeline and doesn't buy you much. >> >> It buys you that several commits are bunched in staging and are treated >> in bulk. At least I think it does. > > No, it doesn't: The MRs must pass CI individually before it can be > merged.
I did not propose to have CI on staging. > So it only buys you another test when staging progresses to master. That was the first, not another test in my plan. -- David Kastrup
