[Bf-committers] RFC: "Continuous integration" branch?

[Campbell Barton]

On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Sergey Sharybin <sergey.vfx at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would say:
>
> - Being able to filter in dev.b.o is omsething we must have. I've created a
> quick patch to filter differencial revisions by project [1]. It was
> rejected by upstream because phabricator team wants to have general way to
> filter all objects which depends on project without having duplicated code
> all over the place [2].
>
> It'll take some time still i think, but meanwhile i don't see anything bad
> in applying D11999 for our installation for until generic filtering is
> implemented in an upstream. Likely some latest updates from upstream allows
> to get rid of other hacks in our copy :)
>
> - I still think we should allow having staging-PATCH branches for
> non-trivial changes at least. WOuld be kinda temp- but we'll know those
> branches are subject to be merged sooner when the git is open.
>
> [1] https://secure.phabricator.com/D11999
> [2] https://secure.phabricator.com/T5595

+1, on all points.

@z0r, re: git flow, agree its good to have unstable development in
feature-branches, this is what we already do in many cases (though not
for smaller features/changes) so it can work well to do this more too.
But not keen on having a development branch only for the weeks we're
in bcon3/4.