On Sep 11, 2013, at 2:57 AM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> > > On 09/11/2013 07:43 AM, Darren Shepherd wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Prasanna Santhanam <t...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> I think we messed up with the users again this time. Partly a fault >>> that we can't get beta-quality builds for users to test. Seeing >>> everyone run 4.2 packages after release announcement and reporting >>> critical bugs I wish could've happened soon after freeze and during >>> the test schedule. >>> >>> To get beta quality builds we need to absolutely treat the master >>> branch as 'stable'. Never hurt it, automate against it, branch off >>> quality builds from it and create packages and mirror them. That'll >>> save us a ton of effort. >>> >>> >> Just to reinforce that branching point. For all practical purposes, master >> should be treated like a release branch. You only commit to master AFTER >> you've done QA. Builds from master should be tested for only >> re-verification (or run your automated regression tests, since you >> obviously created those when you did QA) and for integration testing. >> >> So, I have no clue how people are doing QA, but if your checking into >> master when you think you're "dev done," so that QA can pickup a build and >> start testing, then your doing it all wrong. Check into branch, test from >> branch, when all is swell, merge to master, revalidate on master. >> > > I think that's a good point. Master is not a playground. Stuff which goes in > there should work. > > A broken master also slows down other devs. I can't remember the number of > times I've been debugging master for hours to find out something broke it. > so how do we enforce this ? > Wido > >> Darren >>
