Yes, branch away. You can do it today. Keep those broken builds at bay! I think we need a Dr. Seuss-style children's book about continuous integration.
--Chris Nauroth On 3/29/16, 9:31 AM, "Andrew Bayer" <[email protected]> wrote: >Branch away, I say. Also I rhyme apparently. > >A. > >On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Allen Wittenauer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Hey gang. >> >> YETUS-156¹s purpose is to give Yetus the ability to act as >> daily/nightly/whateverly build driver for CI systems. This way, Yetus¹ >> reporting could be part of the CI process rather than just digging >>through >> mountains of logs looking for errors. The vast majority of changes are >> purely cosmetic [yay!] but there are quite a few of them to clean up. >> >> >> Given: >> >> * that we don¹t have a branch policy (at least, that I¹m >> aware ofŠ.) >> * YETUS-156 is working well enough in my tests for >>people >> to start playing with it >> * YETUS-156 is probably reaching the point where it is >> Œtoo big to review¹ (~40k at last rebase) >> >> I think it might be useful to setup a branch for YETUS-156, >> preferably with a CTRTM (commit then review then merge)-type policy. >>This >> would give others a chance to play, break it up into a reviewable state, >> give me a chance to fix bugs quickly while still providing protection to >> master if the 0.3.0 train decides to leave before this is ready. >> >> In the mean time, I¹ve changed YETUS-156 to be an umbrella, if >> just for my own sanity. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Thanks!
