From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16419 invoked by alias); 25 Sep 2009 18:42:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 16404 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Sep 2009 18:42:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:42:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n8PIgdZE023181; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:42:40 -0400 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n8PIgdAI006536; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:42:39 -0400 Message-ID: <4ABD0F1E.5030807@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:00:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20090922 Shredder/3.0pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joseph S. Myers" CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: delete dead feature branches? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00542.txt.bz2 On 09/25/2009 12:55 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > Do we believe any future conversion to another version control system > (that might have a more structured notion of what is a branch than it > simply being a directory used in a certain way) would continue to make the > history of such branches readily available? (This is more something to > make sure of in the course of such a conversion, that this history is > kept, but we might wish to avoid making such a conversion unnecessarily > hard.) git-svn seems to look at deleted branches during the import. > We also have branches/dead/, Does that have advantages over just deleting them? > and a feature branch may be dead for reasons > other than having been merged into trunk (for example, it may have been > replaced by another branch without all changes being merged into trunk). My inclination would be to delete branches like that as well. I would distinguish between branches that have been replaced by another branch or trunk, which I would delete, and branches that haven't had any development on them in a while, but haven't been merged anywhere either, which I would retain. Jason