On Thursday 29 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote: > On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote: > > On Thursday 29 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote: > > > On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote: > > > > I am rather convince that our current model (or the one we aim at, ie > > > > master in a releasable state at all time), but it does require people > > > > to accept that their latest newest shiny super cool feature is less > > > > important than shipping a finished product to our users, and > > > > therefor merge things that are reasonnably ready, for which the > > > > developers don't know of any major bugs. Maybe we should have a long > > > > discussion on the development workflow at the next sprint. > > > > > > It also means that we need to setup the system of branches we have > > > discussed before a couple of times already. We don't have that now, > > > with the result that we are still working as if in svn. > > > > Huh ? That is not true, we do work with branches. > > Yes, it is true. All branches related to the release process are missing. Name the branch ? Because apart of the branch I have named, none are missing.
> There's no staging branch where people can easily track all branches in one > go, and that is the reason that the branches do not get sufficient testing > before merging into master. The problem of the staging branch is that noone has step forward to do the work on proposing a workflow (it is not as simple as doing "git checkout -b staging" and telling people they can merge all kind of branches in there. -- Cyrille Berger Skott _______________________________________________ calligra-devel mailing list calligra-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
