public inbox for archer@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Proposal to change branch maintenance
@ 2013-02-11 21:56 Tom Tromey
  2013-02-13 11:32 ` Gary Benson
                   ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2013-02-11 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Project Archer

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.


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.


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.

I think newer git even has some automated thing for documenting
branches, but unfortunately I think we aren't all on a new-enough git
yet.  We could adopt that when we're ready.

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-11 21:56 Proposal to change branch maintenance Tom Tromey
@ 2013-02-13 11:32 ` Gary Benson
  2013-02-13 12:16 ` Jan Kratochvil
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Gary Benson @ 2013-02-13 11:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: Project Archer

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/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-11 21:56 Proposal to change branch maintenance Tom Tromey
  2013-02-13 11:32 ` Gary Benson
@ 2013-02-13 12:16 ` Jan Kratochvil
  2013-02-13 12:33   ` Pedro Alves
                     ` (2 more replies)
  2013-02-18 11:46 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
  2013-02-22 21:27 ` Tom Tromey
  3 siblings, 3 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2013-02-13 12:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: Project Archer

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:56:18 +0100, Tom Tromey wrote:
> So, new branches would be like "tromey/project" rather than the current
> "archer-tromey-project".
> 
> I don't propose renaming existing branches.

IMO if there should be a different naming the existing should be renamed,
otherwise it is more complicated/mess than it was.


> Third, what about adopting a convention for a "README.archer" file in
> the top-level of each branch?

That would not work for merges of multiple branches.  Some ARCHER.branchname
would work.  But ...


> I think newer git even has some automated thing for documenting
> branches, but unfortunately I think we aren't all on a new-enough git
> yet.  We could adopt that when we're ready.

... you probably mean "git branch --edit-description", I do not know it.
It exists even in the oldest supported Fedora (F-17) and in reality archer.git
is not in use outside of RH so I do not see a problem with --edit-description.


Jan

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-13 12:16 ` Jan Kratochvil
@ 2013-02-13 12:33   ` Pedro Alves
  2013-02-13 12:53   ` Gary Benson
  2013-02-18 16:10   ` Tom Tromey
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Pedro Alves @ 2013-02-13 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: Tom Tromey, Project Archer

On 02/13/2013 12:15 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>> > I think newer git even has some automated thing for documenting
>> > branches, but unfortunately I think we aren't all on a new-enough git
>> > yet.  We could adopt that when we're ready.
> ... you probably mean "git branch --edit-description", I do not know it.
> It exists even in the oldest supported Fedora (F-17) and in reality archer.git
> is not in use outside of RH so I do not see a problem with --edit-description.

AFAIK, that's only stored in the local ".git/config", not put on the server...

-- 
Pedro Alves

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-13 12:16 ` Jan Kratochvil
  2013-02-13 12:33   ` Pedro Alves
@ 2013-02-13 12:53   ` Gary Benson
  2013-02-18 16:10   ` Tom Tromey
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Gary Benson @ 2013-02-13 12:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: Tom Tromey, Project Archer

Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:56:18 +0100, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > So, new branches would be like "tromey/project" rather than the
> > current "archer-tromey-project".
> > 
> > I don't propose renaming existing branches.
> 
> IMO if there should be a different naming the existing should be
> renamed, otherwise it is more complicated/mess than it was.

Deleting dead branches would make this easier, of course.

Cheers,
Gary

-- 
http://gbenson.net/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-11 21:56 Proposal to change branch maintenance Tom Tromey
  2013-02-13 11:32 ` Gary Benson
  2013-02-13 12:16 ` Jan Kratochvil
@ 2013-02-18 11:46 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
  2013-02-18 16:11   ` Tom Tromey
  2013-02-22 21:27 ` Tom Tromey
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Sergio Durigan Junior @ 2013-02-18 11:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: Project Archer

On Monday, February 11 2013, Tom Tromey wrote:

> 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.

Agreed.

> 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".

Agreed.

> I don't propose renaming existing branches.

IMO it would be better to rename the existing branches so that we "start
fresh", instead of leaving old stuff behind.

> 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.

Fine by me too.

> I think newer git even has some automated thing for documenting
> branches, but unfortunately I think we aren't all on a new-enough git
> yet.  We could adopt that when we're ready.

I'd prefer this rather than the README.archer file, but I couldn't find
anything related (except the "--edit-description" option from
git-branch, which apparently doesn't do exactly what you described, as
pointed by others).

I would like to propose another thing: the archer repository should
accept "git push --force".  It is annoying having to delete & re-create
the branch you're working on because you're using git-rebase to maintain
a series of patches.  Maybe we could talk to Jim about that?

Thanks,

-- 
Sergio

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-13 12:16 ` Jan Kratochvil
  2013-02-13 12:33   ` Pedro Alves
  2013-02-13 12:53   ` Gary Benson
@ 2013-02-18 16:10   ` Tom Tromey
  2013-02-18 16:20     ` Jan Kratochvil
  2013-02-26 17:33     ` Tom Tromey
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2013-02-18 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: Project Archer

Tom> I don't propose renaming existing branches.

Jan> IMO if there should be a different naming the existing should be renamed,
Jan> otherwise it is more complicated/mess than it was.

It seems the consensus is to rename them.
So, let's do that.

Also I think we should delete all the branches that we got from
gdb.git.  There's no need for them in archer.git.

I'll do the branch deletions next week or so, then the renames after
that.

Tom> Third, what about adopting a convention for a "README.archer" file in
Tom> the top-level of each branch?

Jan> That would not work for merges of multiple branches.  Some
Jan> ARCHER.branchname would work.

Ok, it turns out that --edit-description doesn't really do what we'd
like.  Bummer.

I found this that shows a way that we could make README.archer work
without excessive merge issues:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2108405/branch-descriptions-in-git
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/928646/how-do-i-tell-git-to-always-select-my-local-version-for-conflicted-merges-on-a-s/930495#930495


Alternatively we could pick the README file name based on the branch
name.  This isn't as convenient but it would also work.

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-18 11:46 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
@ 2013-02-18 16:11   ` Tom Tromey
  2013-02-18 16:16     ` Jan Kratochvil
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2013-02-18 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sergio Durigan Junior; +Cc: Project Archer

Sergio> I would like to propose another thing: the archer repository should
Sergio> accept "git push --force".  It is annoying having to delete & re-create
Sergio> the branch you're working on because you're using git-rebase to maintain
Sergio> a series of patches.  Maybe we could talk to Jim about that?

We can edit the git config file on sourceware ourselves.

I'm ok with changing this.
Anybody else have comments on it?

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-18 16:11   ` Tom Tromey
@ 2013-02-18 16:16     ` Jan Kratochvil
  2013-02-22 15:06       ` Tom Tromey
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2013-02-18 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: Sergio Durigan Junior, Project Archer

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:11:13 +0100, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I'm ok with changing this.
> Anybody else have comments on it?

+1

I already have:

git-push-f:

#! /bin/bash
set -ex
branch="$(git branch|sed -n 's/^[*] \([^()]*\)$/\1/p')"
test -n "$branch"
git push origin ":$branch"
git push origin "$branch"
echo OK


Jan

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-18 16:10   ` Tom Tromey
@ 2013-02-18 16:20     ` Jan Kratochvil
  2013-02-18 16:29       ` Tom Tromey
  2013-02-26 17:33     ` Tom Tromey
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2013-02-18 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: Project Archer

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:10:22 +0100, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Also I think we should delete all the branches that we got from
> gdb.git.  There's no need for them in archer.git.

I already did so, where do you see them?
	archer.git "master" deletion (+branches cleanup)
	Message-ID: <20111226231836.GA32067@host2.jankratochvil.net>
	http://sourceware.org/ml/archer/2011-q4/msg00010.html
	http://sourceware.org/ml/archer/2012-q1/msg00001.html
	

> I found this that shows a way that we could make README.archer work
> without excessive merge issues:
> 
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2108405/branch-descriptions-in-git
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/928646/how-do-i-tell-git-to-always-select-my-local-version-for-conflicted-merges-on-a-s/930495#930495

Those are two big pages with many solutions, which one do you mean?

I quickly found there only dropping of the merged content; but in fact the
list of merged branches would be exactly useful during the merging:

Currently I track a separate file "IMPORT" generating the merged branches list
there (currently only 2, there were many), this could be done automatically
now, see the header of:
	http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gdb.git/tree/gdb-archer.patch


> Alternatively we could pick the README file name based on the branch
> name.  This isn't as convenient but it would also work.

The convenience depends on whether it is for branch author or for the merge
maintainer. :-)


Jan

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-18 16:20     ` Jan Kratochvil
@ 2013-02-18 16:29       ` Tom Tromey
  2013-02-18 17:03         ` Jan Kratochvil
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2013-02-18 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: Project Archer

Jan> I already did so, where do you see them?
Jan> 	archer.git "master" deletion (+branches cleanup)
Jan> 	Message-ID: <20111226231836.GA32067@host2.jankratochvil.net>
Jan> 	http://sourceware.org/ml/archer/2011-q4/msg00010.html
Jan> 	http://sourceware.org/ml/archer/2012-q1/msg00001.html
	
E.g., but there are really many more:

barimba. git branch -r |grep origin/gdb
  origin/gdb-4_18-branch
  origin/gdb-csl-20060226-branch
  origin/gdb-csl-arm-20051020-branch
  origin/gdb-csl-available-20060303-branch
  origin/gdb-csl-gxxpro-6_3-branch
  origin/gdb-csl-symbian-20060226-branch
  origin/gdb-premipsmulti-2000-06-06-branch
  origin/gdb_5_0-2000-04-10-branch
  origin/gdb_5_1-2001-07-29-branch
  origin/gdb_5_1_0_1-2002-01-03-branch
  origin/gdb_5_2-branch
  origin/gdb_5_3-branch
  origin/gdb_6_0-branch
  origin/gdb_6_1-branch
  origin/gdb_6_2-branch
  origin/gdb_6_2-branch-UNNAMED-BRANCH
  origin/gdb_6_3-branch
  origin/gdb_6_4-branch
  origin/gdb_6_5-branch
  origin/gdb_6_6-branch
  origin/gdb_6_7-branch
  origin/gdb_6_8-branch
  origin/gdb_7_1-branch
  origin/gdb_7_2-branch
  origin/gdb_s390-2001-09-26-branch

Jan> Those are two big pages with many solutions, which one do you mean?

Supplying a merge program to keep just the local version of
README.archer on a merge.

Jan> I quickly found there only dropping of the merged content; but in fact the
Jan> list of merged branches would be exactly useful during the merging:

It would be possible to do other kinds of automatic merging.
For example we could "cat" the two files together.

Tom> Alternatively we could pick the README file name based on the branch
Tom> name.  This isn't as convenient but it would also work.

Jan> The convenience depends on whether it is for branch author or for the merge
Jan> maintainer. :-)

Sure, but also we're either back to "user-branch.txt" or we're enforcing
branch base-name uniqueness.

I don't really mind either.

It's more typing to do "git show
origin/tromey/some-long-thing:tromey-some-long-thing.txt", but of course
it is scriptable, so no big deal.

Since you're doing most of the serious merges, how about you say which
you'd prefer?  I'd really like to get the branch info off the wiki,
since in practice I've found it is an impediment to pushing things...
but one of the major selling points of git is that we ought to be more
free here.

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-18 16:29       ` Tom Tromey
@ 2013-02-18 17:03         ` Jan Kratochvil
  2013-02-18 17:40           ` Tom Tromey
  2013-02-18 22:01           ` Tom Tromey
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2013-02-18 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: Project Archer

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:29:15 +0100, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Jan> I already did so, where do you see them?
> Jan> 	archer.git "master" deletion (+branches cleanup)
> Jan> 	Message-ID: <20111226231836.GA32067@host2.jankratochvil.net>
> Jan> 	http://sourceware.org/ml/archer/2011-q4/msg00010.html
> Jan> 	http://sourceware.org/ml/archer/2012-q1/msg00001.html
> 	
> E.g., but there are really many more:
> 
> barimba. git branch -r |grep origin/gdb
>   origin/gdb-4_18-branch

You must have some stale local copy.  Both
	http://sourceware.org/git/?p=archer.git;a=heads
and fresh
	git clone git://sourceware.org/git/archer.git
do not show anything other then archer-* branches.

BTW gdb.git tags were left there, that could be fixed (but I do not use tags).


> It would be possible to do other kinds of automatic merging.
> For example we could "cat" the two files together.

Yes, that would be great.


> Since you're doing most of the serious merges, how about you say which
> you'd prefer?

In fact it does not matter much as the additional work twice a year is very
minor.

But I find the 'cat' merge would be best for everyone, even for other people
occasionally possibly doing some archer branch merges.


Jan

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-18 17:03         ` Jan Kratochvil
@ 2013-02-18 17:40           ` Tom Tromey
  2013-02-18 22:01           ` Tom Tromey
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2013-02-18 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: Project Archer

Jan> You must have some stale local copy.  Both
Jan> 	http://sourceware.org/git/?p=archer.git;a=heads
Jan> and fresh
Jan> 	git clone git://sourceware.org/git/archer.git
Jan> do not show anything other then archer-* branches.

I needed to run "git remote prune origin".
I wasn't aware that this had to be done manually, oops.

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-18 17:03         ` Jan Kratochvil
  2013-02-18 17:40           ` Tom Tromey
@ 2013-02-18 22:01           ` Tom Tromey
  2013-02-22 15:54             ` Tom Tromey
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2013-02-18 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: Project Archer

Jan> But I find the 'cat' merge would be best for everyone, even for
Jan> other people occasionally possibly doing some archer branch merges.

I'll write this soon.

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-18 16:16     ` Jan Kratochvil
@ 2013-02-22 15:06       ` Tom Tromey
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2013-02-22 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: Sergio Durigan Junior, Project Archer

Tom> I'm ok with changing this.
Tom> Anybody else have comments on it?

Jan> +1

Ok, I changed our git config in archer.git to:

[receive]
	denyNonFastforwards = false


Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-18 22:01           ` Tom Tromey
@ 2013-02-22 15:54             ` Tom Tromey
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2013-02-22 15:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: Project Archer

Jan> But I find the 'cat' merge would be best for everyone, even for
Jan> other people occasionally possibly doing some archer branch merges.

Tom> I'll write this soon.

The very simplest way to do this is to add this to your .git/config:

[merge "archer"]
       name = README.archer merger
       driver = tee -a %A < %B > /dev/null

Then make an attributes file like:

echo "README.archer merge=archer" >> .git/info/attributes


This is slightly ugly since it doesn't separate the various file
contents at all.

A slightly better option is to put this script on your PATH somewhere:

#!/bin/sh

# A git merge script for README.archer files.

echo >> $1
echo ================================================================ >> $1
cat $2 >> $1
exit 0


Then change the config entry to point to it:

[merge "archer"]
       name = README.archer merger
       driver = readme-archer %A %B


This yields somewhat nicer output.

I didn't see a particularly handy way for us to share this, aside from
emailing scripts around.  So, here it is.

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-11 21:56 Proposal to change branch maintenance Tom Tromey
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2013-02-18 11:46 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
@ 2013-02-22 21:27 ` Tom Tromey
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2013-02-22 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Project Archer

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:

Tom> Third, what about adopting a convention for a "README.archer" file in
Tom> the top-level of each branch?  This file would explain the branch's
Tom> purpose and would let us bypass the tedious step of updating the wiki
Tom> whenever pushing a new branch.

I've added this to a couple of my branches.

You can see it in action with

    git show origin/archer-tromey-python-checker:README.archer

I'd like everyone to add a file like this to their live branches.  Don't
bother with the dead branches, I'm going to zap them all soon.  It is
fine with me if you want to wait for the great branch renaming before
doing this.

thanks,
Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-18 16:10   ` Tom Tromey
  2013-02-18 16:20     ` Jan Kratochvil
@ 2013-02-26 17:33     ` Tom Tromey
  2013-02-26 20:13       ` Tom Tromey
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2013-02-26 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Project Archer

Tom> I'll do the branch deletions next week or so, then the renames after
Tom> that.

I've zapped all the dead branches now.

Please check your branches to see whether any dead ones remain.

Next I'm going to rename some of my branches.

If that goes well, I plan to rename all the remaining branches as
discussed, and then delete the old names.  I will send email before
doing this so you will know not to push during the renaming.  After the
renaming, please be sure to use the new names.

thanks,
Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-26 17:33     ` Tom Tromey
@ 2013-02-26 20:13       ` Tom Tromey
  2013-02-26 20:31         ` Sergio Durigan Junior
  2013-02-27 20:50         ` Tom Tromey
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2013-02-26 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Project Archer

Tom> Next I'm going to rename some of my branches.

I've done this now.

I'll wait until tomorrow to rename all the remaining branches.

If you fetch, you can "git prune remote $remote" ($remote usually is
"origin" or "archer" for you...) to zap all the dead branches.

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-26 20:13       ` Tom Tromey
@ 2013-02-26 20:31         ` Sergio Durigan Junior
  2013-02-27 20:50           ` Tom Tromey
  2013-02-27 20:50         ` Tom Tromey
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Sergio Durigan Junior @ 2013-02-26 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: Project Archer

On Tuesday, February 26 2013, Tom Tromey wrote:

> If you fetch, you can "git prune remote $remote" ($remote usually is
> "origin" or "archer" for you...) to zap all the dead branches.

Thanks, Tom.

The command is "git remote prune $remote".

-- 
Sergio

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-26 20:13       ` Tom Tromey
  2013-02-26 20:31         ` Sergio Durigan Junior
@ 2013-02-27 20:50         ` Tom Tromey
  2013-02-27 21:15           ` Tom Tromey
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2013-02-27 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Project Archer

Tom> I'll wait until tomorrow to rename all the remaining branches.

I'm going to start this now.

Please refrain from pushing for the time being.
I will send mail when I am done.

The most important bit here is that, after updating and pruning, you
should be sure to edit your .git/config to ensure that the "merge"
property for branches you care about is correct.

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-26 20:31         ` Sergio Durigan Junior
@ 2013-02-27 20:50           ` Tom Tromey
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2013-02-27 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sergio Durigan Junior; +Cc: Project Archer

Sergio> The command is "git remote prune $remote".

Whoops, thanks.
I should have cut-and-pasted :)

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

* Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance
  2013-02-27 20:50         ` Tom Tromey
@ 2013-02-27 21:15           ` Tom Tromey
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2013-02-27 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Project Archer

Tom> I will send mail when I am done.

Ok, I have renamed all the branches and deleted the old ones.
Please check my work.

Tom> The most important bit here is that, after updating and pruning, you
Tom> should be sure to edit your .git/config to ensure that the "merge"
Tom> property for branches you care about is correct.

Also, please make sure to create a README.archer file in each of your
branches.  The point of this is to make it simpler to make branches --
no more editing the wiki.  I plan to push a few new ones now...

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2013-02-27 21:15 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-02-11 21:56 Proposal to change branch maintenance Tom Tromey
2013-02-13 11:32 ` Gary Benson
2013-02-13 12:16 ` Jan Kratochvil
2013-02-13 12:33   ` Pedro Alves
2013-02-13 12:53   ` Gary Benson
2013-02-18 16:10   ` Tom Tromey
2013-02-18 16:20     ` Jan Kratochvil
2013-02-18 16:29       ` Tom Tromey
2013-02-18 17:03         ` Jan Kratochvil
2013-02-18 17:40           ` Tom Tromey
2013-02-18 22:01           ` Tom Tromey
2013-02-22 15:54             ` Tom Tromey
2013-02-26 17:33     ` Tom Tromey
2013-02-26 20:13       ` Tom Tromey
2013-02-26 20:31         ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2013-02-27 20:50           ` Tom Tromey
2013-02-27 20:50         ` Tom Tromey
2013-02-27 21:15           ` Tom Tromey
2013-02-18 11:46 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2013-02-18 16:11   ` Tom Tromey
2013-02-18 16:16     ` Jan Kratochvil
2013-02-22 15:06       ` Tom Tromey
2013-02-22 21:27 ` Tom Tromey

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).