From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Toon Claes Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Continuous integration Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:59:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <87a88emy62.fsf@luca> <87k27h8ncd.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83a88d720e.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1490198542 23676 195.159.176.226 (22 Mar 2017 16:02:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:02:22 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (darwin) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 22 17:02:19 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cqii5-0004bG-AX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:02:05 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51805 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cqiiA-000274-O4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:02:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34363) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cqigA-0001VS-Uv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:00:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cqig7-0005wH-A3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:00:07 -0400 Original-Received: from simba.contactoffice.com ([212.3.242.97]:57308) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cqig2-0005qP-Dc; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 11:59:58 -0400 Original-Received: from smtpauth1.co-bxl (smtpauth1.co-bxl [10.2.0.15]) by simba.contactoffice.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2CB12C5; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:59:56 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from T-437.local ([94.227.10.94]) by smtp.contactoffice.com (envelope-from ) with ESMTPSA ; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:59:55 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <83a88d720e.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:41:05 +0200") X-ContactOffice-Account: com:91601486 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 212.3.242.97 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:213235 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Ted Zlatanov >> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:14:58 -0400 >> >> Absolutely. I think the benefits reach beyond that--especially if a pull >> request workflow could be set up. Right now it's "push into branch; ask >> for comments" which is delightfully retro. > > Actually, it's more like "obtain write access, then push your changes > directly". A platform like GitLab relies heavily on pushing code to feature branches, and merge to master when someone approves. I know this is a big change compared to the current workflow, that's why I am proposing to start of by setting up CI (which will work with either workflow). -- Toon