Hi,
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:19:19AM -0500, Jason Swails wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:16 PM, case <case.biomaps.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I like this approach.
If i understand this then timely testing of the master branch
would not be done nightly (or sooner) on commits but only after e.g. days.
Nightly testing is the gold standard because it is usually easier to
identify and fix something the sooner it is discovered.
> > 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.
Effectively then the master branch is no longer the stable branch,
but merely a 'buffer' as you say between commits and automated testing.
This approach might work for the 'just one more commit tonight' type of
inadequate testing (where one squeezes in a commit during testing).
But will it lose overall by encouraging even less disciplined testing
by committers because they have a comfort zone in which to procrastinate ?
scott
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Sat Nov 12 2011 - 00:30:02 PST
