On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Aug 6, 2014, at 7:15 PM, 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 > > David, can you clarify. Are you going to be against any change of git > workflow until we get CI/BVT in place ? >
No, please don't take it that way. I understand Leo's point about Cherry-picking being for fruit, and not code. But, I don't think that the workflow changes I've seen proposed affect quality. So shifting for quality's sake doesn't make a lot of sense in my mind. They could be a component of fixing the quality problem. --David
