> 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.
Holy smokes Batman... Robin is in 100% agreement here!
> 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 ?
Exactly!!! This is what we need to stop. People should commit to the master
branch. Then when cruisecontrol tells them something is broken they go and
fix it. It will finally stop people committing code and not caring if they
broke something.
All the best
Ross
/\
\/
|\oss Walker
---------------------------------------------------------
| Assistant Research Professor |
| San Diego Supercomputer Center |
| Adjunct Assistant Professor |
| Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry |
| University of California San Diego |
| NVIDIA Fellow |
|
http://www.rosswalker.co.uk |
http://www.wmd-lab.org/ |
| Tel: +1 858 822 0854 | EMail:- ross.rosswalker.co.uk |
---------------------------------------------------------
Note: Electronic Mail is not secure, has no guarantee of delivery, may not
be read every day, and should not be used for urgent or sensitive issues.
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Sat Nov 12 2011 - 14:00:03 PST
