On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 20:40:17 -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I guess I don't see an advantage to this. The branches which only get > pullups once in a while get all the cycles, while the branch where the > real work happens gets to be starved? They could be for master, too; I'd like them to prioritize stable branch changes over master changes, if that's possible to do. The advantage for 1.6 is that it would speed up rebasing/submitting a lot of 1.6 changes, which can easily happen; I think speed there is more important, since delays can easily delay the release process. I don't really see what master submission delays impede. I don't think the concern about differing buildbot results would be a huge problem, though; we should notice it pretty quickly, and builds breaking for "external" reasons still happen sometimes. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
