Re: Obstacles for using GitLab CI

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Am Donnerstag, den 14.05.2020, 08:09 +0100 schrieb James:
> On a more general question, and not really understanding how this CI 
> workflow will change 'contexturally' what we do, so apologies for if 
> what I am about to say is ignorant, but are we still taking the 
> 'master-must-always-be-good' / 
> 'staging-can-be-bad-because-we-can-force-delete-not-just-revert' approach?
> 
> Rather than just automate everything and if something brakes we checkin 
> a reversion which then makes the tree not 100% compilable?
> 
> I've liked that approach we take so far and it always instills a level 
> of confidence about master.

We would keep 'master-must-always-be-good' but without having an
explicit staging branch that we need to revert. Instead we ask GitLab
to only add commits to master after they have passed testing. So
staging + patchy is basically replaced by merge request + GitLab
verifying the result of CI. My proposal will hopefully clear this up
with concrete examples.

Jonas

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part