On Oct 12, 2013 11:48 PM, "Justin Mclean" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi. > > > Also, I think it might be a good idea that if we include a 'prepare > > for RC' phase, I can switch the Mustella VM from the 'develop' branch > > to the 'RC' branch. > Wouldn't it be easier to just ask people to work in branches and not commit directly directly to develop unless they want it in the next RC? > > It's easy enough to merge release back into develop every few changes or so/ at the start of a RC.
How would this help with running Mustella tests on the release branch, which is want Erik's point was? > > > That way, we know we're good for an RC if those > > runs pass and not if they fail. The 'develop' branch is always in > > motion and difficult to stabilise for a release. > Is that actually the case? I think at just about any point in the last 2 months we could of made a release from develop with only minor issues. There just wasn't enough changes for a release. > > > Also, during an release, we might want to point the 'flex-sdk_release' > > job on [email protected] at the 'RC' branch, so the nightlies from that point > > on to release will basically be the RC. > If we merge into develop from release at regularly intervals their should be no issues with the nightlys. > > > This would also mean that the period we work on a release becomes more > > extended > Is that a good thing? I'd rather releases were less work for everyone involved and we had them more frequently (every few months). Releases ideally should be as simple as branching release, doing some basic checks and voting on it. > > Thanks, > Justin >
