[petsc-dev] does next model mess up our histories

[Barry Smith]

On Oct 2, 2014, at 6:57 AM, Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org> wrote:

> Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> writes:
>> I guess another alternative for these veryfew feature branches
>> that need to iterate over nightlytest suites is:
>> 
>> - never merge feature branch to next untile its complete
>> - switch master or next nightlytest to feature branch [for a few days]
>> - fix rebase feature branch as needed.
> 
> If we had a continuous integration system, the mere act of creating a
> pull request could spawn the builds on many architectures and give us
> the results.  MOOSE does this with moosebuild and a zillion project do
> it with Travis-CI, Jenkins, etc.
> 
> It would be useful, but requires test system improvements.

  Yes, but it seems silly to say because the tests are done at night instead of immediately we cannot put clean branches into master.

  Maybe nightly builds should be done on next-next (which is pulled off master nightly and then discarded in the morning) and only then does the branch move to next. Conceivably we’d have three sets of tests, daily, nightly, eveningly.  Thus stuff pull into next-next would still be “private” and could be rebased etc

   Barry