| 1 |
On 05/06/16 17:49, rindeal wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 5 June 2016 at 18:40, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 6 June 2016 at 04:31, rindeal <dev.rindeal@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Isn't no commit approach better than having broken commit + revert |
| 5 |
>>> commit? |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Huh? |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Its doing "replicate to github on pass using a merge commit". |
| 10 |
> I'd like to see the master branch free of commits which do not pass |
| 11 |
> CI, instead of having broken commits and holding master back until |
| 12 |
> revert commits are introduced. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
Which is the whole idea .... 'stable' becomes fully CI parsed good |
| 15 |
'green light' whereas master is a 'holding bay' until the CI script can |
| 16 |
do its stuff .. |
Archives