Re: Auto-merging translations and master

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 10:11:46AM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
>> Now that I have looked at the scripts for building staging and merging
>> it into master, upgraded my Fedora installation, a cron job runs this
>> every two hours on my computer in the lab, and sends an email
>> notification only if something fails or when a build is done.  How about
>> adding merging with translation?  I propose that when staging builds
>> succesfully, it should be merged into master and translation, then a
>> build of translation is attempted, and if it succeeds translation is
>> merged into master.
>
> Subsequent discussion nixed the ideal of auto-merging back into
> master, but would it make sense to auto-merge master into
> translation?

Depends on what kind of workflow the translators want.  The direction of
the merge makes no difference with regard to the probability of reaching
a state that may no longer compile even without a previous warning
through merge conflicts.

But then both git-visible or git-sidestepping merge conflicts need to be
resolved eventually.  If multiple translators are working simultaneously
on the translations branch, it might be a reasonable expectation that
the translation branch would not become uncompilable by automatic means,
namely at unexpected and possibly inconvenient times.

-- 
David Kastrup