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

[François T.]

Hey Campbell,

thinking about a older comment you made about users will want to only test
the shiny one with all the new features. I kind of agree with that, I would
probably be the first. But who says that this version tested/compiled via
CI should be available to public ?
Like the way only certified developers could submit code, why can't we
think about "only dev binary". So this branch could only be used and see by
devs having credentials ?

2015-03-08 12:48 GMT+01:00 Campbell Barton <ideasman42 at gmail.com>:

> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:57 AM, David Fenner <d4vidfenner at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Truth be told, release candidates aren't very well tested anyway. It's
> when
> > a true release comes when true testing begins. I say it as an artist
> myself.
> >
> > My personal opinion on this matter is a little more unorthodox, I think
> > there simple shouldn't be a "Bcon" and releases every 3 months. I'm very
> > serious. This only makes blender development too sparse and out of focus
> on
> > the important things. Releases should come when the goals are met,
> period.
> > Just like Krita does. The big discussion should be about what will this
> > goals be, will it be despgraph refactor, hair sim, cloth speed, and some
> > other things. If these things are unfinished, then "in the middle"
> > releseases just get developers out of focus. Nobody wants a half made
> tool
> > that rushes into a release, or development time wasted in a release that
> > doesn't have the tool at all. What is the point of fixing so many bugs
> when
> > there are 20 half baked projects in the way that will come with a ton of
> > bugs very soon anyway? Why not make really important releases?  We don't
> > care if we wait for eight months for a real release. Then I'd be truly
> > interested in testing release candidates, but honestly, if nobody tests
> > them right now, is for a reason, and this is "why should I test it if
> > another one will come in a very short time anyway? " We can talk about
> > community morals here, about being really active and not only ripping of
> > the benefits and bla bla bla but in truth, really effective things occur
> > when we see things like they really are, not based on ideals.
> >
> > The fact that this discussion even started shows that something needs to
> be
> > done here, and instead of making separate branches, that as sergey said,
> > most people will stick to the development one, I propose simple extending
> > the release cycle indefinetely, until clear, big and small goals are met,
> > with a cap of course, lets say nine months or a year.
>
> Blender used to do releases much less frequently (release when its
> ready) as you described and it didn't work well for us.
>
> Also the comment "nobody tests them right now" isn't true, we get bug
> reports specifically from users testing RC's in our tracker.
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>



-- 
____________________
François Tarlier
www.francois-tarlier.com
www.linkedin.com/in/francoistarlier