On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 18:01 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 05:48:49PM +0200, Miklos Vajna wrote:
> > Question is what would be the best to mark these changes. Should we use
> > a specially named "topic" for these changes, and reserve that name for
> > this purpose? Or
Hi Stephan,
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 09:37:53AM +0200, Stephan Bergmann
wrote:
> However it can be implemented in gerrit, I very strongly favor a
> mechanism where committing for verification is a single command line
> step (that doesn't "cheat" by involving an obligatory client-side
> script to
On 10/02/2014 05:48 PM, Miklos Vajna wrote:
1) Developer pushes to gerrit, somehow marking the change as "I'm
already confident with this, just pushing to gerrit so that I can do
build verification".
2) Build verification happens.
3) If the change is "marked somehow", then it also gets automati
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 05:48:49PM +0200, Miklos Vajna wrote:
> Question is what would be the best to mark these changes. Should we use
> a specially named "topic" for these changes, and reserve that name for
> this purpose? Or should the developer just +2 the change? I'm open to
> suggestions
