Hi, On 2014-12-16 14:31, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > 2014-12-16 14:28 GMT+01:00 Boylan, James <[email protected]>: > >> A practice that I have seen is that master is master and general bug fixes >> merge directly into master. If you are making a major feature or functional >> change that will likely break things you make a branch for that, get it >> working, tested and verified. And then merge that into master. >> >> > that's what I am doing ever since ;) > > It was really just the name issue for PRs. And if you check the mailing > list archive, around two month ago there was a more or less endless branch > on testing and how the branches should be named. The outcome was that > master should never receive any commits that were not run through the > testbench. Thus now there is master-candidate, which I merge into master > when the testbench runs are ok. Just a very quick summary FYI.
I am not sure if I get everything: Will every commit go through "master-candidate" before landing in "master"? How often will you merge "master-candidate" into "master"? Only when doing a release? -Thomas _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/ What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE THAT.
