On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Eric Schulte <schulte.e...@gmail.com> wrote: > Skip Collins <skip.coll...@gmail.com> writes: >> Would it make sense to automatically enforce passing all tests before >> git accepts a change? > > I for one would strongly oppose this change. This would only make it > take longer and thus make it less likely that new code is committed. > This is the master branch where development should be fast and > experimentation should take place, not the maintenance branch.
Designating something as an expected failure seems to be a good way to track minor issues that need eventually to be resolved. As a user, I frequently update with make up2 just to avoid getting bitten by stupid errors that might sneak into master. Is it really that much extra work for a developer to run the same command before committing and either fix the error or mark it as a known failure?
