On 11/30/2012 12:31 AM, Rob T wrote:
On Friday, 30 November 2012 at 06:05:51 UTC, 1100110 wrote:
Take for example Gerrit + Jenkins: Every commit is first sent to Gerrit.
Gerrit triggers Jenkins to run all unit tests over the new commit.
Jenkins
reports the result back to Gerrit. If all tests are green and another
developer gives his "Looks good to me" (lgtm) then the commit is
applied to
the target branch.
How would this fit into the Stable model?
Assuming 3 branches, I doubt it would be prudent to run every test
multiple times.
Ideas?
I'm pretty much done for the day, so will look what you wrote up in
detail tomorrow.
One quick suggestion before I call it a day, is for there to be an
"experimental branch" for the great minds behind D to play around with
(eg UDA's etc). We probably don't want experimental stuff going directly
into a branch that is destined for stable. Unstable should be for items
that are relatively finalized in terms of design and agreement that the
concept is to be eventually incorporated into stable, i.e., moving a new
feature into unstable starts the refinement process towards a stable
release of that feature.
We could say that individual forks are good for experimental work, so
there's no need for an official experimental branch, however, that will
leave out the unconnected people who may want to tinker with the latest
and greatest ideas that are being worked on.
I don't know really, this is just something I'm tossing out for
consideration. Debian has an experimental branch, and I have a lot of
respect for what that organization has achieved, so it's probably there
for a good reason.
--rt
Hmmm... You can easily see the available branches in git, so I'm not
quite sure if this would be a good idea..
This might be where the metaphor breaks down.
We should definitely look at Debian as a successful, widely-used stable
system, but we shouldn't simply copy them.
I can't think of a good reason to do this right now.
Good idea though, I hadn't even considered that myself.
