Hi, bertagaz wrote (19 Feb 2015 21:39:25 GMT) : > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 04:39:22PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: >> bertagaz wrote (16 Feb 2015 12:03:12 GMT) : >> > Ack, sounds reasonable. However from what I've seen, it sometimes means a >> > lot of branches so I wonder if we scaled our infra enough for that, as we >> > didn't include this branches in our maths since the beginning of the >> > discussion. >> >> This seems like a serious bug in this discussion process. May you >> please then provide example numbers that match what the proposed >> algorithm would output, so that we can reason about it?
> I've added to the statistic page the doc branches that have been merged. > Part of them were not in the output of the script because they often get > merged in master. It seems to add 4 to 6 branches per release, but their > development and integration flaw is a bit different. I've modified my count-merges script locally to take into account merges into master too, but it didn't catch any more merges. No surprise, given e.g.: git log 1.1..1.3-rc1 --merges --pretty=oneline | grep master | grep doc ... returns no such merge. Possibly the doc branches are merged without --no-ff into master? sajolida, any idea? > So in the end, I'm not sure they'll add a lot more load, but we have to > count them in our maths. Yep. Too bad we can't really do that with good stats. Cheers, -- intrigeri _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
