On 05/06/16 17:49, rindeal wrote: > On 5 June 2016 at 18:40, Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6 June 2016 at 04:31, rindeal <dev.rind...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Isn't no commit approach better than having broken commit + revert >>> commit? >> >> Huh? >> >> Its doing "replicate to github on pass using a merge commit". > I'd like to see the master branch free of commits which do not pass > CI, instead of having broken commits and holding master back until > revert commits are introduced. > Which is the whole idea .... 'stable' becomes fully CI parsed good 'green light' whereas master is a 'holding bay' until the CI script can do its stuff ..
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
