Fix test disabled 2016.3 [DO NOT MERGE FORWARD] #37704
Conversation
|
@rallytime Because the change was there in 2016.11 already.... doesn't it conflict if the same code is already there? |
|
No; If the changes are exactly the same, they will not create a merge conflict. However, in the broader discussion of merge-forwards, if it does conflict, I can just resolve the merge conflict. Resolving merge conflicts is all part of the process of merging branches forward. It happens regularly. Your commits in this PR will be merged-forward, regardless, as we don't want a situation where we are pulling commit references out of merge-forwards. Because of this, I then have to make sure your changes do not propagate to the next branch any time you ping me for something to not merge forward. This is the same scenario as discussed here. So if something will conflict, that is ok. That happens on the majority of merge-forwards, and is all part of the process. I usually don't need to be notified. Sometimes I this becomes an issue when the change is difficult to tell which branch changes should be taken. For example, a large bug fix on an older branch that will conflict with a recent refactor: it might be difficult for me to tell which changes from the bug fix should also belong in the refactor. When that happens, I usually ask the person involved in the refactor and bug-fix to help out to make sure the bug fixes merging into the refactor are considered appropriately. Does that help explain this a little better? Please let me know if you have any questions. |
|
@rallytime Yes. Thanks. |
What does this PR do?
Fixes the mac_service test_disabled test. There was a problem using the apsd service. The test would pass or fail intermittently. Using the nfsd service to test disabled works everytime.
@rallytime Please do NOT merge forward.