On Fri, Nov 11, 2011, Ross Walker wrote:
>
> I do not want to discourage people, I am just trying to make you all
> consider the consequences if you mess up.
Maybe we need a new branch, called "cruise-control". This would never be
updated directly, but would periodically (say weekly for now, more often
as we approach deadlines or releases) merge in master, then trigger its
own cruise control test. Things that broke the cruise-control branch
would incur the wrath of Ross, and maybe an automatic roll-back of that
branch to the last known good state.
Effectively, the current master branch would be a buffer for mature
commits. Cruise control would continue to be available, but there would
be less pressure on commits -- you'd have a day or so to fix something
that didn't work like you thought. An update to the master branch would imply
a commitment to follow it on cruise control and to promptly fix any problems
found there.
People who wanted to test out the current code could clone the
"cruise-control" branch and have (some) added assurance of not having to
fight trivial bugs along the way.
Less mature work would continue to be done in "-dev" branches, still with the
hope and expectation that people working in these branches will periodically
merge in master (to keep code divergence somewhat in check).
Comments (but not flames) are welcome.
....dac
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Fri Nov 11 2011 - 19:30:02 PST
