From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23688 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2013 11:46:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact archer-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Sender: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Received: (qmail 23679 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Feb 2013 11:46:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Tom Tromey Cc: Project Archer Subject: Re: Proposal to change branch maintenance References: <874nhipla5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:46:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <874nhipla5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:56:18 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-q1/txt/msg00005.txt.bz2 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