Re: test-infra proposal: master-tested branch (was: test infrastructure ideas appreciated ...)

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen
<bjoern.michaelsen@canonical.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 03:04:41PM +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> > Having master-tested might help us a lot in having more of the first and less
> > of the second.
>
> I learned today that I could have spared myself the work of describing this, as
> git comes with a best practices advice to do pretty much the same. Type:
>
>  git help workflows
>
> in your shell and you get it as a man page (it names the branches 'master' and
> 'next').

That nice, but that is not at all the workflow we use

For one, we do not have a maintainer-driven process
All that man page describe is from 1/ pull-branch +merge based
development 2/ with a maintainer handling the pulls and merge
'promotion'.
last but not least, multi-platform is not addressed, because the
tagging/promotion mechanism described is not meant to be
automated/ci-driven

So to restate the actual real requirement for us.

"Having an easy and reliable way for people to checkout a known-green
recent commit form master so that they can rely on gerrit build result
as an indication of the performance of their patch rather than the
hazardous state of master."



Norbert