Hi Stefan, On 07/17/2012 08:37 PM, Stefan Roese wrote: > On Tuesday 17 July 2012 01:11:01 Graeme Russ wrote: >>> It was discussed whether to do some "automatic" merging of these >>> per-custodian trees into a central next, but majority of people believed >>> that the patch handling process should remain as unchanged as possible >>> in sync with the "principle of least surprise". >> >> I agree that automatic merging is a 'Bad Thing(tm)'. But one thing I notice >> (and I don't know if this is a recent thing) but there seems to be a case >> of zero merge activity up to the closing of the merge window and then a >> rash of merging just prior to the RCs. I favour a more continuous merge >> strategy. > > I favored the automatic merging at the conference mainly because of one > reason: > > To detect potential merge conflicts as early as possible. And send the result > of this automated merge to the list (or a new list).
100% agree with first sentence. Worried about how much extra traffic an auto-build would cause if it was mailing the list as well > In combination with (automated) nightly builds this not only catches merge > conflicts but also build problems. All this should be pretty easy to > automate. > And it moves the detection of those problems closer to the submission of the > patches. So we (and the original patch authors) don't have to figure out what > the patch was all about weeks later. I think U-Boot has reached the point that purely manual patch management is not longer cutting the mustard. Maybe it's time to seriously look at a gerrit + jenkins based solution? Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot