Am Donnerstag, den 21.05.2020, 15:19 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup: > Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> writes: > > Am Donnerstag, den 21.05.2020, 14:29 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup: > > > The "traffic jam" problem could be avoided by retaining the option of > > > pushing to staging. That would occur without CI, but one could > > > occasionally trigger the merge with CI on staging to have everything in > > > it migrate to master. Since staging would be used by the more > > > experienced people desiring to bunch their work before testing, the > > > triggering could also happen manually by whoever thinks he has pushed > > > enough stuff to staging to give it a whirl. > > > > That's not really how CI works. With our policy of FF merges, what > > happens if some MR get merged directly to master and some sit in > > staging? You'd probably rebase staging which triggers another CI > > pipeline and doesn't buy you much. > > It buys you that several commits are bunched in staging and are treated > in bulk. At least I think it does.
No, it doesn't: The MRs must pass CI individually before it can be merged. So it only buys you another test when staging progresses to master.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part