Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

15
  • 40
    Failed builds should never have reached master to begin with. That's what development & feature branches are used for. Those changes go then in something like an integration branch where you can test if all new features of several developers will work together and only if this is tested in can go into master. Or at least that's one possible workflow. Commented Aug 21, 2015 at 8:09
  • 1
    @thorstenmüller well imagine then that it is in a development branch that all developers use. Should the CI system revert commits that fail the build? Commented Aug 21, 2015 at 8:21
  • 7
    It seems you are using git in a strange way. Generally, people should be working on their own repos in their own branches, and only push to main once CI for their personal build verified that the changes are OK. Commented Aug 21, 2015 at 9:08
  • 4
    >"this conflicts are reduced to the minimum"; you get less conflicts at merge time, but you get issues with bad merges a lot more. The solution is to continually merge from master to your branch as part of your process, not to not branch. Commented Aug 21, 2015 at 15:44
  • 2
    ... Why not make it so failing builds don't get accepted into master to start with? Commented Aug 22, 2015 at 6:40