On 11/06/15 12:19, Tor Lillqvist wrote: > > Let's have a branch called "lo-next", or "bleeding", or something like > that. I don't have access to Mac, and don't build on Win. How hard is it > to push all changes to "bleeding", and then either cherry-pick or bulk > push all changes to master when they pass on all relevant test boxes. > > > I agree, except that I would call the "bleeding" branch "master", and > call the "master" branch "libreoffice-5-0". Oh, wait, that is what we > already have!
So what happens if I write a patch that works fine on linux, so I apply it to master, and the Windows build promptly blows up ... Or are you saying that, as soon as I've got a patch that works on all three build-bots, I should push it to stable? > > (Is the above humour, irony or sarcasm? Determining that is left as an > exercise to the reader.) > Sorry if I come over as humour-impaired, I just think we should test for breakage BEFORE things get pushed to master, not after. Or is that *supposed* to be happening already? And if it is, why are things slipping through the net? Cheers, Wol _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
