Re: Pushing patches to staging

[Graham Percival]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 08:56:38PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> And you can't push to master anyway without having rebased (or merged,
> which one does not usually want to see upstream) your development branch
> to its current state, so I have trouble understanding your problem.

You're assuming that we have achieved moderate git competency.  We
haven't.

I (optimistically) think that we don't need to require moderate
git competency.  I (optimistically) think that it is possible to
create a set of instructions that can be copy&paste'd to do
whatever we need to do.

I really hope that my optimism is well-founded.


> But I do think there is some agreement that we are considering the
> master branch push experiment a reliably recurring failure.  And the
> consequences get more expensive the more developers are working on
> Lilypond.

+1

> Going through staging with an automated test procedure is going to help.

+1

> If you have a better suggestion how to deal with the "master gets broken
> frequently" phenomenon, go ahead.

I can't think of any other solution that's appealing.  (the main
"other solution" is to revoke git access for X weeks for anybody
who breaks master, but since something like 80% of our development
effort comes from people who break master (including myself), this
would backfire badly)

The only problem is to develop a series of simple commands to do
this task.

- Graham