While the idea of staging seems to be reasonable. Most OSS projects choose not to do so because having a complicated staging will likely confuse the contributors, and increase the change of divergence(between dev and master).
Given that we have a release model, so in some sense the release itself serves as a staging pt. A good approach would simply setup the nightly if necessary strive to fix regressions and make sure the formal release addresses the issues. TQ On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 5:32 PM Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > I talk to some people about this and they thought it would be a good idea, > so sharing it here: > > I would propose to use a staging or "dev" branch into which nightly & > performance tests are done periodically and then this branch is merged to > master. The goal of this workflow would be to avoid having regressions and > nightly failures creeping into master. PRs would get merged into dev and > dev promoted periodically / nightly into master. > > The names can be swapped as well, between dev and master, so PRS get merged > into master and it doesn't change the workflow, and staging is the branch > where nightly changes are merged to. > > Have this been considered? > > Pedro. >
