On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 03:40:41PM +0200, Remy Bohmer wrote: > Hi, > > Regarding the Custodian workflow I have a general question: why do we > follow a rebase flow for the custodian trees? If custodians merge master > frequently into their own branches and merge that back on pull requests > would technically work too right? > But there are downsides to it why this is not done like that. Can you give > me a summary of the issues to be faced here?
So, generally, no one should be using the custodian trees unless the custodian is directing people to test something. Historically this was good as part of encouraging vendors to work to get changes in to mainline. It also means that when there's something wrong with the PR, those changes can be fixed and I think that is more valuable than a broken commit (and then range of bad commits) and then the fix. Especially since when this happens it's almost always a build-related issue and not a run time problem. If someone wanted to handle their tree differently and it didn't impact the rest of my workflow, I wouldn't notice and wouldn't complain. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
