| 1 |
On 6 June 2016 at 05:09, rindeal <dev.rindeal@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> It is not, unless CI filters the broken commits in some miraculous |
| 3 |
> way. With the current approach, both stable and master branch will |
| 4 |
> contain the pollution of broken commits + their fixes, instead of |
| 5 |
> having good commits only. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Doing that is of course, impossibly hard without having every |
| 9 |
committer publish to their own branch, and having the "master" built |
| 10 |
by *cherry* picking commit series that are "known good". |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Its doable, but the complexity it entails is just way more than is |
| 13 |
suitable for the gentoo workflow, and is likely to create more |
| 14 |
problems than it solves. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The "no bad commits" requires there to be at last *some* branch |
| 17 |
somewhere that is constantly not-fast-fowardwardable, and at least one |
| 18 |
branch that serves as a synchronization point with strictly linear |
| 19 |
history. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Kent |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |
Archives