Let's please all stop wasting time arguing about next! We can argue when there is something to argue about. Not now.
> On Nov 11, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Balay, Satish <ba...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Nov 2017, Jed Brown wrote: > >> Removing next without a reliable substitute that ensures quality control >> would be a disaster for the stability of 'master', and thus for everyone >> trying to develop new features. That's what we had before switching to >> Git and it was a mess. > > Sorry if I gave you the impression that what was discussed was going > back to our old (master-only) model. > > The initial reference [one liner] didn't have details - so it was > perhaps misleading. > > But in my subsequent e-mails - I've explained one way of interpreting > it reference to stuff like - for eg: [copy/paste from prior e-mail] > >>>>>>> . > 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. tests master+ feature2 > 3. success => merge feature2 to master > <<<<<<< > > Satish