On 06/05/2016 02:05 PM, james wrote:
> On 06/05/2016 12:15 PM, Daniel Campbell (zlg) wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA512
>>
>> On June 5, 2016 9:04:26 AM PDT, "Michał Górny" wrote:
>>> Hello, everyone.
>>>
>>> I have the pleasure to announce that a few improvements have be
On 06/05/2016 12:15 PM, Daniel Campbell (zlg) wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On June 5, 2016 9:04:26 AM PDT, "Michał Górny" wrote:
Hello, everyone.
I have the pleasure to announce that a few improvements have been
deployed by the Repository mirror & CI project today.
On 6 June 2016 at 05:34, rindeal wrote:
> efore merging to master they do a rebase+force push,
> let the CI check it, and if it passes they're allowed to merge it. No
> cherry-picking involved. Master is then always clean and happy. I'm
> not sure how well it scales, but for the 100-150 commits/da
On 5 June 2016 at 19:13, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 6 June 2016 at 05:09, rindeal wrote:
>> It is not, unless CI filters the broken commits in some miraculous
>> way. With the current approach, both stable and master branch will
>> contain the pollution of broken commits + their fixes, instead of
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On June 5, 2016 9:04:26 AM PDT, "Michał Górny" wrote:
>Hello, everyone.
>
>I have the pleasure to announce that a few improvements have been
>deployed by the Repository mirror & CI project today.
>
>
>1. The mirror for 'gentoo' repository [1] now ha
On 6 June 2016 at 05:09, rindeal wrote:
> It is not, unless CI filters the broken commits in some miraculous
> way. With the current approach, both stable and master branch will
> contain the pollution of broken commits + their fixes, instead of
> having good commits only.
Doing that is of cours
On 05/06/16 18:09, rindeal wrote:
> On 5 June 2016 at 18:53, M. J. Everitt wrote:
>> On 05/06/16 17:49, rindeal wrote:
>>> On 5 June 2016 at 18:40, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 6 June 2016 at 04:31, rindeal wrote:
> Isn't no commit approach better than having broken commit + revert
> comm
On 5 June 2016 at 18:53, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 05/06/16 17:49, rindeal wrote:
>> On 5 June 2016 at 18:40, Kent Fredric wrote:
>>> On 6 June 2016 at 04:31, rindeal wrote:
Isn't no commit approach better than having broken commit + revert
commit?
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>> Its doing "repli
On 6 June 2016 at 04:49, rindeal wrote:
> I'd like to see the master branch free of commits which do not pass
> CI, instead of having broken commits and holding master back until
> revert commits are introduced.
Just pretend "stable" is called "master" and pretend "master" is called "devel"
->
On 05/06/16 17:49, rindeal wrote:
> On 5 June 2016 at 18:40, Kent Fredric wrote:
>> On 6 June 2016 at 04:31, rindeal wrote:
>>> Isn't no commit approach better than having broken commit + revert
>>> commit?
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> Its doing "replicate to github on pass using a merge commit".
> I'd like
On 5 June 2016 at 18:40, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 6 June 2016 at 04:31, rindeal wrote:
>> Isn't no commit approach better than having broken commit + revert
>> commit?
>
>
> Huh?
>
> Its doing "replicate to github on pass using a merge commit".
I'd like to see the master branch free of commits w
On 6 June 2016 at 04:31, rindeal wrote:
> Isn't no commit approach better than having broken commit + revert
> commit?
Huh?
Its doing "replicate to github on pass using a merge commit".
--
Kent
KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL
On 5 June 2016 at 18:04, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> I have the pleasure to announce that a few improvements have been
> deployed by the Repository mirror & CI project today.
>
>
> 1. The mirror for 'gentoo' repository [1] now has a default 'stable'
> branch. It is updated automatic
Hello, everyone.
I have the pleasure to announce that a few improvements have been
deployed by the Repository mirror & CI project today.
1. The mirror for 'gentoo' repository [1] now has a default 'stable'
branch. It is updated automatically by the gentoo-ci checker,
and therefore always contain
14 matches
Mail list logo