Hi,
intrigeri <intrigeri@???> wrote:
> bertagaz wrote (16 Feb 2015 14:32:57 GMT) :
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:49:02PM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
> >> I have a few concerns, though:
> >>
> >> * "Scenario 2 : developer" doesn't make it clear if branch T is
> >> build *after being locally merged into branch B*, or not.
> >> Given that's what we're really interested in, and given
> >> "Scenario 1 : reviewer" is clearer (answer is: yes), I guess the
> >> answer is yes here too, but this should be clarified.
>
> > IIRC that was something Alan had troubles with, as not being the way she
> > usually work on a feature branch, which I think was more close to "Work
> > work work on the branch, and then when the feature is ready, merge the base
> > branch in it." So she usually do not merge the base branch very often.
>
> Most of us (including me) do the same as Alan, but IMO that's almost
> irrelevant to the topic at hand. This same scenario reads:
>
> And I need to know if my branch build is broken by something else
> possibly weeks after my last commit (by e.g Debian changes,
> changes in branch B, ...)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> ... and we cannot possibly get this without locally merging the topic
> branch F into B before building.
>
> The important point here may be the *locally* word. This merge would
> only be done in Jenkins own temporary Git checkout, and wouldn't
> affect how we're handling our branches' Git history.
>
> > But I agree this is not the best way to go, so if Alan doesn't come up with
> > a block on this, I agree to add the clarification.
>
> OK. But apparently, either I misunderstood why Alan had trouble with
> this idea, or Alan has misunderstood the idea, so IMO it would be good
> to have his opinion now that I've clarified what I think we should do,
> and why. Alan?
>
I do not see any issue with this local merge by our autobuilder. Looks
to me like the right thing to do.
Cheers
