Re: Master ahead of staging

[David Kastrup]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> sorry, my mistake (another reason to move to different tooling.)

I very strongly disagree.  We don't want to move to a tooling where
material that is untested in its context gets pushed to the resource
everybody is dependent on.  We have set up the staging system for a
reason, and the reason was to avoid a lot of friction that kept occuring
in spite of best intentions (and tested reviews) on a semi-regular
basis, typically every few months.

This is completely orthogonal to the review and issue tracking system,
so there is no point in blaming it.

It's not that hard to make it a habit to never push to master but
instead to staging (yes, there were the occasional accidents in the
beginning as well as the rare misunderstanding that patches bypassing
reviews because of triviality were fine to push directly to master), and
I don't see that we should change that practice when moving to a
different tooling system for reviews and issue tracking.

You'll come to cherish the system when you first did a last-minute push
of some completely harmless comment fix before leaving the Internet for
some days and it broke the doc build.  Possibly because of interaction
with some other change someone else committed previously (like removing
some unused macro/function which your patch then used).

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".