On Mon, 6 Jun 2016, Matthew Knepley wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Satish Balay <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2016, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Satish Balay <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Matt, > > > > > > > > Per integration workflow - all feature branches should be tested > > > > locally (and be complete) - before merged to next [next is for > > > > integration testing - not feature testing] > > > > > > > > You could have used (modified): > > > > > > > > config/examples/arch-linux-xsdk-dbg.py > > > > config/examples/arch-osx-xsdk-opt.py > > > > > > > > Yeah - we don't have automatic 'feature branch test before integration > > > > testing' workflow - so currently this has to be done manually. > > > > > > > > > I don't really have the OS/compiler options available to test things > > > exhaustively, so I am > > > using next for this. I think this is acceptable right now. > > > > Well then the feature is not yet ready for next - and could have > > waited until it was ready. > > > > I do nto agree here. Just because some Git nerd thinks that 'next' should be > that way does not mean it is what makes us most productive. I think we are > way > more productive using the nightly tests as a way to discover bugs. I cannot > waste > my personal time running a bunch of tests on my own slow laptop before > pushing.
Well if the workflow is not suitable it should be changed. If you don't stick to it - you might be saving some time - but others end up wasting time.. For ex - I was hoping to graduate a feature branch from next testing - but now thats has to wait.. Since we are not agreeing on the workflow anyway - I could push my stuff directly to master etc.. Satish
