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

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:14:29AM +0100, Wols Lists 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.

Guys, lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. _First_ we need to have
branch/tag/git-notes tooling/whatever that meets the "always green"
requirement. That is the technical part.

From what I read here, I see no opposition on that. It is needed for all the
things that people say is needed on top of that. So instead of fighting the
disagreement over how to name the things, we should focus on that we agree that
the setup of a CI-green master is desired (independant of if we can the two
"no-next/bleeding/master-next" for non-CIed and "master" for the CI-verified
one, or "master" for the non-CIed and "master-tested" for the CI-verified one.

As we seem to be agreeing on the technical part, anyone caring about this is
invited to boil down the technical (and non-controversial) part of this into a
concrete proposal for TDF to consider:

 http://www.documentfoundation.org/grant-request/

If you do, please keep me in the loop, I'd love to help out.

Best,

Bjoern