Changing mindset of core LO developers to the status of master -- was test infrastructure ideas appreciated ...

[Wols Lists]

On 11/06/15 12:19, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> 
>     Let's have a branch called "lo-next", or "bleeding", or something like
>     that. I don't have access to Mac, and don't build on Win. How hard is it
>     to push all changes to "bleeding", and then either cherry-pick or bulk
>     push all changes to master when they pass on all relevant test boxes.
> 
> 
> I agree, except that I would call the "bleeding" branch "master", and
> call the "master" branch "libreoffice-5-0". Oh, wait, that is what we
> already have!

So what happens if I write a patch that works fine on linux, so I apply
it to master, and the Windows build promptly blows up ...

Or are you saying that, as soon as I've got a patch that works on all
three build-bots, I should push it to stable?
> 
> (Is the above humour, irony or sarcasm? Determining that is left as an
> exercise to the reader.)
> 
Sorry if I come over as humour-impaired, I just think we should test for
breakage BEFORE things get pushed to master, not after. Or is that
*supposed* to be happening already? And if it is, why are things
slipping through the net?

Cheers,
Wol