On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote: > On Thursday 29 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote: > > Yes, we have a branch called "master", just like we used to have a branch > > called "trunk". We don't have any other branch that is related to the > > release process. We only have feature branches. > > > > But let it go, this discussion isn't productive at all. > > Yeah lets not improve our workflow...
It is beginning to become an "it is" vs "it isn't" discussion and that is not productive. > > > > > 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. > > > > So it isn't there, and that's why we have this current problem, for which > > we asked for a delay in tagging. I will not have time to work on the > > solution until Saturday, sorry for that. > So any objection to the revert of ef3277a2bd7dd0b9454114d1562b633dff47c86e ? Yes, I prefer to delay the tagging of the beta release, instead of causing a mess for the krita developers by reverting a huge merge. -- Boudewijn Rempt http://www.valdyas.org, http://www.krita.org, http://www.boudewijnrempt.nl _______________________________________________ calligra-devel mailing list calligra-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
