Am Donnerstag, den 14.05.2020, 08:09 +0100 schrieb James: > On a more general question, and not really understanding how this CI > workflow will change 'contexturally' what we do, so apologies for if > what I am about to say is ignorant, but are we still taking the > 'master-must-always-be-good' / > 'staging-can-be-bad-because-we-can-force-delete-not-just-revert' approach? > > Rather than just automate everything and if something brakes we checkin > a reversion which then makes the tree not 100% compilable? > > I've liked that approach we take so far and it always instills a level > of confidence about master.
We would keep 'master-must-always-be-good' but without having an explicit staging branch that we need to revert. Instead we ask GitLab to only add commits to master after they have passed testing. So staging + patchy is basically replaced by merge request + GitLab verifying the result of CI. My proposal will hopefully clear this up with concrete examples. Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
