On Sat, 11 Nov 2017, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > In the long term - Barry wants to get rid of next.. > > > 1) I think next really prevents master from getting screwed up (witness > next) > > 2) I think we are actually finding interaction bugs there. > > Are those points wrong, or is there another way to do these things?
Next is an intergration testing mechanism. The prerequisite for it [I think] is - one should test the branch properly before merging to next. However we are not doing proper testing before merge to next - and relying on next to do this part aswell. So with current next - it one has to figure out which branches are breaking the tests [takes time - which most of us are not doing] - and then hope it gets fixed quickly. Otherwise next stay broken for a long time [and other branches in next - which could be clean - don't receive sufficient confidence to graduate to master] So Barry's thought wrt getting next is to have a better way of testing feature branch one wants to test (i.e master+feature). Its not clear to me how many integration issues we've addressed with our current next model. [Its mostly been indvidual branch issues] Also if feature-1 and feature-2 are feature branches that are tested in next [wrt integration]. The following should be equivalent to testing 'master + feature1 + feature2' - aka current next model: 1. test master+feature1 2. success => merge feature1 to master 3. tets master+ feature2 3. success => merge feature2 to master Note: my next-tmp is an attempt to get closer to 'master+feature1' testing from 'master+feature1+feature2' testing [yeah - its more like master+2/3 branches in next-tmp vs master+10/15 branches in next.] Also I'm restarting next-tmp from a clean master when merging new set of branches to test. And throwing away branches with problems - and retest only after it has fixes [This way a broken branch does not keep next-tmp broken until it gets fixed.] Satish