On Oct 2, 2014, at 7:55 AM, Satish Balay <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Yup. Jed is saying our histories should be terrible. > >> >> 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 >> >> >
