On Thu, 2 Oct 2014, Jed Brown wrote: > Satish Balay <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Thu, 2 Oct 2014, Jed Brown wrote: > > > >> Satish Balay <[email protected]> writes: > >> > I think is ok to be a bit more messy in next. Sure there is a tradeoff > >> > - but you get better debugging in master :) > >> > >> If bugs make it to 'master', the process has failed. > > > > If we have to do patch releases - the process has failed? > > Of course. Every bug is a failure of internal quality control. It's > not possible to avoid bugs entirely, but we should strive to catch them > early. I.e., saying that we won't worry about bugs in 'next' because we > can fix them in 'master' defeats the purpose of the workflow.
I didn't advocate not debugging bugs in next. All I adovcated is: its ok to have a few cases (not allways) reverts (of feature branches) in next that does affect bisection a bit [but I don't think by much - as this is usually recent history debugging] - in favor a cleaner history that helps in long history debugging later on.. Satish
