From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-157260-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 1120 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2009 06:33:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 1110 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Oct 2009 06:33:13 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.3 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from cantor.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.2)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:33:07 +0000
Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) 	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) 	(No client certificate requested) 	by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D9A8E8CC; 	Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:33:05 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:36:00 -0000
From: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
To: Ben Elliston <bje@au1.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>, 	Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org>, 	"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>, 	Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>, 	gdr@integrable-solutions.net, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: delete dead feature branches?
In-Reply-To: <1255481458.22828.2.camel@helios>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0910140829390.15566@wotan.suse.de>
References: <h9in34$4pu$1@ger.gmane.org>  <Pine.LNX.4.64.0909251650450.30532@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>   <4ABD0F1E.5030807@redhat.com>  <206fcf960909251214u5770c7b5o141614226e28fdff@mail.gmail.com>   <84fc9c000909251220r62d518bka48cd3a13d0d5ea0@mail.gmail.com>   <Pine.LNX.4.64.0909251932570.6234@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>  <4AD33BA2.60107@gnu.org>   <4AD39C64.3020304@redhat.com>  <Pine.LNX.4.64.0910130303090.15566@wotan.suse.de>  <1255481458.22828.2.camel@helios>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00306.txt.bz2

Hi,

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Ben Elliston wrote:

> 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?

Well, I'm always of the opinion that it's better to have some technical 
solution to ensure something (in this case to not loose track of old 
branches) instead of relying on conventions, unless the technical 
solutions are cumbersome in some way.

So, why not just move them to dead-branches now, and be done with it?


Ciao,
Michael.