cor...@inaugust.com (James E. Blair) writes:
...
> The Changes
> ===
>
> I believe the following changes will address all five problems and
> achieve both design goals:
>
> a) Apply inheritance at the same time as variance
>
> Rather than applying inheritance at configuration time, apply
Doug Hellmann writes:
> In the discussion yesterday, and in the emails today, you've implied
> that there is an ordering to job definitions beyond inheritance. Is that
> discovery order documented somewhere? If not, is it simple enough to
> describe in a few sentences
Andrea Frittoli writes:
> We will need somewhere in the logs a description of the traversal that was
> done to build the final job. I believe that would help debugging issues that
> may arise from unexpected inheritance behaviour.
>
> Andrea Frittoli (andreaf)
Yes!
Excerpts from corvus's message of 2017-10-24 15:22:51 -0700:
> Hi,
>
> A number of issues related to how jobs are defined and run on projects
> with stable branches have come up recently. I believe they are all
> related, and they, as well as the solutions to them, must be considered
> together.
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:23 AM James E. Blair wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A number of issues related to how jobs are defined and run on projects
> with stable branches have come up recently. I believe they are all
> related, and they, as well as the solutions to them, must be
Wow, I have (almost) nothing to add.
On 10/25/2017 12:22 AM, James E. Blair wrote:
[...]
c) Add a config option to disable the implicit branch matcher
There are some times when an implicit branch matcher on master may be
undesirable. For example when tempest was becoming branchless, it had
Hi,
A number of issues related to how jobs are defined and run on projects
with stable branches have come up recently. I believe they are all
related, and they, as well as the solutions to them, must be considered
together.
The Problems
I've identified the following five