Thanks for that last paragraph, Oliver. You put into words what has been running through my mind since Friday.
-- Jord van der Elst. On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Oliver Bock <oliver.b...@aei.mpg.de> wrote: > On 06/08/17 22:40 , David Anderson wrote: > > Testing a feature in isolation is not the same as testing the system. > > True. > > > No one is advocating committing untested or buggy code into master. > > Yet it happens most of the time, mostly because *development* happens in > master. And even if one sees a seldom feature branch for development > it's more often than not merged to master after incomplete feature > testing (e.g. not even a full build on all platforms). In any case > master is broken. > > > However, feature testing doesn't mean that master is stable. > > Right, but it should be as stable as possible which requires a > continuous improvement effort. Why is it broken and what can you do to > actively avoid it next time? > > > For that, we need to do system-level testing in a separate release > branch. > > You're right that system-level (a.k.a. integration) testing should take > place in a *specific* branch. However that branch should be master in > our opinion. As Laurence pointed out: release branches are to stabilize > and fix releases. > > I agree with Bernd: can it be that your resistance to use master for > integration just stems from the fact that you don't like developing in > feature branches because you're still used to CVS or SVN, and in your > mind branching and merging still is a pain? > > > This is what we've done for years with the client software. > > Thing is, it's probably time to reconsider your view on BOINC. That "we" > means 2-3 developers running their "own" project. BOINC is different > now, at least it officially wants to be. You said BOINC is now a > community project. If you really mean it, then please listen to the > community. From what I can tell, the community is in agreement on how > things should be done nowadays. Why are you opposing *all* of us? Also, > you haven't yet given any concrete arguments/reasons why the model we > propose *really* wouldn't work. So far, you stated personal > impressions/facts that were often misinformed or in fact unrelated to > what we discussed. All of this could be resolved constructively, it > would just take some open mindedness. Please consider this: when you're > thinking "why is everyone but me headed in the wrong direction?", it's > probably about time to reconsider you own course. > > Best, > Oliver > > > > _______________________________________________ > boinc_dev mailing list > boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu > https://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev > To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and > (near bottom of page) enter your email address. > _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu https://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
