> It's normal for builds to fail between releases. Why justify this with some categorical normative? In the last 7 or 8 years of my development life the master

> It's normal for builds to fail between releases. Why justify this with some categorical normative? In the last 7 or 8 years of my development life the master branch on every project I've worked on has always been clean. Breaking changes live in a branch and those branches are becoming shorter and shorter lived (previously lived for months, then weeks, now days). That doesn't necessarily mean master is at all time ready to release (although some hold that extreme position). But it does mean that whenever you want to start work on some new feature you can be sure that branching from master is safe. And rebasing against master at any point should be safe. In fact, almost all repos I've worked with recently explicitly deny merges into master unless a suite of tests pass, including basic builds, unit tests, and static code linting. The very idea that I could ever pull master and get a build failure makes me shudder.