On Thu, 2 Oct 2014, Barry Smith wrote: > > > I guess another alternative for these veryfew feature branches > > that need to iterate over nightlytest suites is: > > > > - never merge feature branch to next untile its complete > > This is silly. I lose all the portability testing that next provides and > would never be able to merge into next because I know things will be broken.
No - you would get the protability test as indicated by the second bullet listed below. This first requirement is to satisfy Jeds criteria - never rebase after merge to next. > > Yupp definitely something wrong with our current model. Seems to me we > should just restart next from master every few days. We are long overdue for a next restart. I go ahead and do that - and leave the re-merge of feature branches to individual owners. But I still think its ok to undo merges in next if for whatever reason you need to rebase [but rebase has to be done as required] I disagree on 'reset next' every few days as a fix to this problem. I suspect Jed will have a different objection for this reset.. Satish > > - switch master or next nightlytest to feature branch [for a few days] > > - fix rebase feature branch as needed. > > > > [would perhaps require test infrastructure improvements - and an > > apriori knowledge that this feature branch could go through major back > > and forth changes requiring multiple rebases] > > > > Satish > >
