Hi
I think the (temporary) release branch has a number of advantages
a) changes from master cannot squeeze in after releng starts.
b) auto-builds will not happen for master during release
c) releng commits can be reverted, so that the eventual merge to
master can be compressed to what worked, free from typos and other
stupidities
If the 'a' builds are not often required we can go for the target
name directly.
Improved workflow:
a) Fast-forward merge the 'release' branch with 'master'
b) Switch the (only one needed) job configuration to 'release'
c) Build x.y.z.Mn at +1 allowing N/I repo contributions (RESOLVE_N4S
= true)
d) Build x.y.z.Mna at +3 using only S repo contributions
(RESOLVE_N4S = false,. the default)
if practice 'a' build reuses all old features and plugins, no 'a'
build needed
if practice 'a' build creates a newer feature or plugin, do a real
'a' build
e) Switch the job configuration back to 'master'
The RESOLVE_N4S parameter was really easy to do and avoids impact on
the publishing scripts, download pages, other places that I don't
know about.
Regards
Ed
On 17/08/2013 17:27, Adolfo
Sánchez-Barbudo Herrera wrote:
_______________________________________________
mdt-ocl.dev mailing list
mdt-ocl.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-ocl.dev
No virus
found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6585 - Release Date:
08/17/13
|