From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2911 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2009 00:51:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 2902 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Oct 2009 00:51:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e23smtp06.au.ibm.com (HELO e23smtp06.au.ibm.com) (202.81.31.148) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:51:04 +0000 Received: from d23relay03.au.ibm.com (d23relay03.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.245]) by e23smtp06.au.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n9E0osa2013649 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:50:54 +1100 Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (d23av01.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.96]) by d23relay03.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n9E0p0oq1404970 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:51:00 +1100 Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av01.au.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id n9E0oxjD025318 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:51:00 +1100 Received: from ozlabs.au.ibm.com (ozlabs.au.ibm.com [9.190.163.12]) by d23av01.au.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id n9E0oxh5025315; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:50:59 +1100 Received: from [10.61.2.144] (haven.au.ibm.com [9.190.164.82]) (using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3AE735FC; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:50:59 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: delete dead feature branches? From: Ben Elliston To: Michael Matz Cc: Jason Merrill , Paolo Bonzini , "Joseph S. Myers" , Richard Guenther , gdr@integrable-solutions.net, gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: References: <4ABD0F1E.5030807@redhat.com> <206fcf960909251214u5770c7b5o141614226e28fdff@mail.gmail.com> <84fc9c000909251220r62d518bka48cd3a13d0d5ea0@mail.gmail.com> <4AD33BA2.60107@gnu.org> <4AD39C64.3020304@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:37:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1255481458.22828.2.camel@helios> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00296.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 03:05 +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > I don't think we should necessarily limit ourself by bugs in foreign tools > if it reduces useful information. What about a new top-level directory > dead-branches/, not under branches/ but parallel to it? Should be easy to > exempt from git-svn handling, shouldn't it? I found that svn log works well if you do this: svn log svn+ssh://bje@gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc | less The important thing is to make sure that the log message carefully describes the name of the branch when it is deleted, so that one can search the log output to find it. I deleted a personal branch from 5 years ago and have added the revision number of the delete commit to the branch description in svn.html. Would these two conventions suffice? Ben