Em Quinta-feira, 11 de Novembro de 2010, às 17:56:25, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 05:17:39PM +0100, Macieira Thiago (Nokia-MS-Qt/Oslo) wrote: > > Em Quinta-feira, 11 de Novembro de 2010, às 16:38:23, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu: > > > the whole reason for the merge replaying feat is making merges not > > > different from any other submission as far as the CI system goes. > > > > Linear history inside a long-lived branch doesn't involve replaying > > merges from upstream branches. The merges from the upstream branch > > should remain as- is, they don't have to touched. > > you cannot push an untouched merge to the integration branch without > flushing the queue (i.e., waiting until the current integration run is > done) and blocking further integrations until you are done. > that's simply too disruptive for the regular operation of the system.
Indeed. But that's exactly what we're proposing. It's what we have now and
nothing changes.
The Early Warning System is helpful to catch errors before waiting for the
queue run. But once the commits have been approved, they will be cherry-picked
and batched up. When the current integration run is done, these batched up
commits will be sent in and they block further integrations until it's done.
And it's not disruptive.
So if it's not disruptive, how hard is it to make that one of the queue runs
instead of cherry-picking the commits, it merges a branch?
> well, fair enough.
> if we are good players we'll publish all infrastructure anyway, so
> everyone can run his own instance.
Instance of what?
> > I also don't see the need for secret branches at all.
>
> as if something like the s60 port could never happen again.
>
> > If I want a secret branch, I can keep it on my machine.
>
> well, yeah. with "my" possibly referring to an entire company.
Well, that's Nokia's problem, not the Qt Project's problem. Remember that the
infrastructure we're talking about here isn't running on Nokia servers. If
Nokia or someone else wants to have secret branches (business sensitive) on
public infrastructure, owned and run by others...
The public infrastructure is for public stuff. If someone wants to keep a
private branch, they can do that. They don't get to use our infrastructure
though.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) nokia.com
Senior Product Manager - Nokia, Qt Development Frameworks
Sandakerveien 116, NO-0402 Oslo, Norway
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Opengov mailing list Opengov@qt-labs.org http://lists.qt-labs.org/listinfo/opengov
