Re: [AMBER-Developers] Proposal for a new git branch

From: Scott Brozell <>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:51:22 -0500


On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 09:59:28AM -0500, case wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011, Scott Brozell wrote:
> > 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.
> No, Testing of the master branch would continue as at present. ...
> Updating master would imply a commitment to follow the cruise-control tests,
> and to promptly fix any problems that it reveals.

I understand now.

> My fear is that if we (implicitly) say "you have to run all these tests before
> committing to master" we'll miss a lot of good commits, and people will
> retreat to their private branches and not share code.

Yes, there has already been some agreement on this list
on multiplatform testing being one purpose of cruise control
and on a protocol for committing to master branch.

Over the years there have been groups that have commented that
keeping up with the master branch is a lot of work.
It may be that testing has suffered overall because such
groups retreat into mostly using their Amber or the released Amber.
One could consider Dave's proposal as enlisting such groups in
another layer of testing, probably best described as beta testing.

Rather than a set periodic updating from the master to the
cruise-control branch, aka beta-testers branch, updating
could be under thoughtful human control to ensure stability
and sensibility of the cruise-control branch.


AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Wed Nov 16 2011 - 01:00:03 PST
Custom Search