Hello,
Am Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 11:11:14AM +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
The way I see it, one of the branches would be tested independently.
The second one would also be tested independently, but on a limited
scope—e.g., x86_64-only, because (1) we usually have more build power
for that architecture, and (2) perhaps we know the problems with those
branches are unlikely to be architecture-specific.
Then we’d rebase that second branch on top of the first one, and build
the combination for all architectures.
concurring with Simon, following this description, I also do not
understand
what this concept of merge trains improves as long as it is not
automated
(and we have lots of build power to subsequently build several
combinations
of branches).
Once the first branch is good, why not simply merge it to master and
then
rebase the second branch on master and test it, instead of postponing
the
merge? After all, building is costly, not merging.