Thanks for the details David. How do we tell the build which branch to use as build input?
On 2012-09-04, at 9:05 PM, David M Williams wrote: > No, we have several "autotaggers" that use master only, directly. > > The only warning is you need to be careful as you approach milestones, > releases, what ever, and not push something to master thinking "it won't > effect current build", since it will. In other words, you need to break old > habits. > > Jumping ahead, the general recommendation (I've heard) is to remove the > integration branch if no longer used, to help avoid confusion. (Since its > only purpose was to mark what to include in current build, it doesn't contain > meaningful tags or history ... is my understanding). [You'd have to open a > releng bug and get some help with deleting this branch, since we normally > don't allow deletion of branches, except <commit_id>/featurebranch ]. > > An alternative, to master-integration distinction is to always do "prep work" > in feature branch, such as <committer_id>/bugxOrfeatureY, you can push that > to repo, have others review, write code to it (in their own commit_id/ > branch), do tests, etc., and once all set to merge what should be merged > merge that into master. (and, then, yes, can delete <committer_id>/ branches > when no longer needed or useful, without releng help). > > HTH > > > > > > > > > From: Pascal Rapicault <[email protected]> > To: P2 developer discussions <[email protected]>, > Date: 09/04/2012 08:32 PM > Subject: Re: [p2-dev] Master v. Integration > Sent by: [email protected] > > > > I'm all for reducing the overhead. However was not that added to satisfy the > requirements of automated tagging? > > Pascal > > On 2012-09-04, at 4:50 PM, Ian Bull wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Due to the long weekend I forgot to merge master into integration this week. > This isn't very serious (since we are early in the development cycle), but it > means we need to wait another week to test changes, etc... I'm wondering if > we still need both branches for p2? Having two branches makes sense during > active development, where things may get committed that shouldn't be included > in a weekly integration build. However, for maintenance, it doesn't really > make sense -- especially when you consider we typically just merge everything > each week anyways. > > What do you think about building p2 from master each week? > > Cheers, > Ian > > -- > R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484 > http://eclipsesource.com | http://twitter.com/eclipsesource > _______________________________________________ > p2-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev > _______________________________________________ > p2-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev > > _______________________________________________ > p2-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
_______________________________________________ p2-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
