I am not advocating that we should follow git-flow. If you see my original [proposal], it has no mention of git-flow. I just felt that we are abusing git and put some points which could help us improve.
Git-flow is something which I liked and felt that it would make us treat git well. I am okay with any proposal which addresses those. I suggest not to discuss on this anymore. We had long discussions and still failed to reach consensus. lets put up a new one and I would be happy to vote. David/Alena/anyone else, Can you take this up and put a proposal for vote? [proposal] http://markmail.org/message/dawo4oannrdgpfgs On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 4:45 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Alena Prokharchyk > <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: > > Edison, thank you for raising the concern about the BVT/CI. Somebody > > mentioned earlier that we should separate git workflow implementation > from > > the CI effort, but I do think we have to do in in conjunction. Otherwise > > what is the point in introducing staging/develop branch? If there is no > > daily automation run verifying all the code merged from hotFixes/feature > > branches (and possibly reverting wrong checkins), we can as well merge > the > > code directly to master. > > > > Yes! - please. > Doing this without CI as a gating factor buys us very little. > > --David > -- ~Rajani
