Just make sure you don't turn your build orange! Since, y'know, rhyming with orange and all.
A. On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Chris Nauroth <[email protected]> wrote: > 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! > >
