I think if we really need this, it's because were doing it wrong.

— abstractj PGP: 0x84DC9914

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Erik Jan de Wit <edewit@redhat.com> wrote:

+1 makes sense to enable this for master and maintenance brances

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:

same here. I think perhaps we "just" protect master?

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno@abstractj.org> wrote:

I feel 50/50 about it, sometimes we have to rebase and fix some mess in the Git tree.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Luke Holmquist <lholmqui@redhat.com> wrote:

https://github.com/blog/2051-protected-branches-and-required-status-checks

I think this would be good for us to implement 

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

--

-- 
"The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato
-
@abstractj
-
Volenti Nihil Difficile

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

--

Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

--

Cheers,

       Erik Jan

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev