On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 4:24 PM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> To Greg's point: how is it that master is broken? How did we allow any > >> merge that hadn't yet been checked (at least to compile, if not > function)? > >> It seems to me that somewhere in our workflow discussion(s) we've > >> put Descartes before the horse. > > We need help getting that workflow document finished. Would you be able > to > > help with that? > > In particular the automated workflow. I think the basic submit and > merge PRs is covered in detail. > > Haitao Liu is the person in charge of developing the automated workflow, > but we will start off simple. He is currently setting up some Jenkins > CI. I know that he also plans to trigger a coding standard and license > check when the PR is submitted. But I don't know any more than that. > There has been discussion of more targeted builds to assure that new > changes don't break the build and discussion of hooks future > hardware/simulator in loop testing. That is all a little vage. Without > a specification for testing to be performed in the automated workflow, > I'm not sure how we give guidance. > > Greg > > I don't know HaiTao, but from the discussions here that I've read, I'm very supportive of his approach. The point I'd like to make, is that I'd much rather the whole world stop turning, nothing get merged into master until we sort out the process; rather than allow anything to break master. I'd like for us to adopt a philosophy that "Nothing is worse than breaking Master." Now, that's just me, I welcome counterarguments (and even flames). -david
