From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14553 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2013 11:32:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact archer-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Sender: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Received: (qmail 14544 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Feb 2013 11:32:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:32:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: Tom Tromey Cc: Project Archer Subject: Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance Message-ID: <20130213113242.GC5023@blade.wire.rat> Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , Project Archer References: <874nhipla5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <874nhipla5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2013-q1/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 Tom Tromey wrote: > I've been thinking a bit about how we maintain branches in archer.git > and I'd like to propose a few changes. Let me know what you think. > > First, going back to something Jan proposed years ago, I think we > ought to delete truly dead branches. That is, if a branch has been > merged upstream and is no longer useful, let's just zap it. I prefer zapping dead branches to keeping them around, but I have no strong preference on this. > Second, let's change our naming approach for new branches. At the > start of the project I was largely ignorant of git, so I made some > obvious-in-retrospect mistakes here. > > I think we should adopt the more git-like "/" separator, and drop > the "archer" prefix, as it is redundant given the repository. > > So, new branches would be like "tromey/project" rather than the > current "archer-tromey-project". > > I don't propose renaming existing branches. I like this idea a lot. > Third, what about adopting a convention for a "README.archer" > file in the top-level of each branch? This file would explain > the branch's purpose and would let us bypass the tedious step > of updating the wiki whenever pushing a new branch. Again, I like this idea a lot. It would be great if we could do this in such a way as to make it easy to write a script that would produce a list of current branches and short descriptions. Maybe specify a simple syntax for the file, like "the first line should be a short description of the branch." Cheers, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/