> On 3 jul. 2015, at 09:21, sebgoa <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 3, 2015, at 9:06 AM, Raja Pullela <raja.pull...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> Remi, >> >> couple of questions on the branching part - when we take the Feature PR and >> Feature is back in Master, feel like we are potentially destabilizing Master >> ? I know, currently we push changes to master even before anything is >> tested fully - agree, we are now running the Travis test before a checkin - >> however, I feel those are not sufficient ? >> >> IMHO - we should take a release branch open it up for PR/checkins and once >> the testing is done the branch gets into Master - we take RC from the master >> and release it. That way no one checkins to master and constantly tested >> changes get into/merged to master. >> >> I remember seeing similar changes proposed by few folks... I have been >> little out of touch on those changes. >> > > Basically yes, we should not merge untested, unfinished features in master
Exactly. Whatever is merged to master “should just work (tm)”. The purpose of having people say this "LGTM", is also to have them verify / test it. In a perfect world this testing is automated. Until we’re there, we need to rely on people to do this. Regards, Remi
