From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24662 invoked by alias); 23 Dec 2014 18:08:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 24644 invoked by uid 89); 23 Dec 2014 18:08:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 18:08:02 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D09E9116435; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:08:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ehVo9x7gUN13; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:08:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B14F01161AF; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:08:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4641A41013; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:08:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 18:08:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: Cary Coutant , Binutils , gdb-patches Subject: Re: Experimental branches Message-ID: <20141223180802.GP12884@adacore.com> References: <20141223132714.GA11973@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg00616.txt.bz2 > > Sounds good to me. At the risk of bikeshedding, "topic" sounds too > > general to me -- how about "com" for company-sponsored branches (e.g., > > com/google/...") and "user" for individuals (e.g., > > "user/ccoutant/...")? Or "experimental"? But I'm OK with whatever you > > decide. > > I like "user" or "users". Let's go for "user/", if people are OK with that. I'd rather not have multiple namespaces in this case, since it doesn't really make much of a difference to us whether it's personal or company-sponsored. > > That ship may already have sailed, though -- there are already quite a > > few personal branches, some "[-_][-_]branch", some > > "/". Would it be easier to whitelist a few patterns > > for branches that you *do* want those notifications for? > > > > We can rename a branch with: > > # git branch -m hjl/pr17729 user/hjl/pr17729 > # git push origin :hjl/pr17729 > # git push -u origin user/hjl/pr17729 Agreed, let's rename the active branches once we agree on the naming scheme. I would revert the order of the last two commands, so that you first add the new branch as a copy of the old, and then delete the old branch. >From an email notification perspective, it makes a difference because, when you add the new branch, the commits are "pre-existing" and therefore trigger no email for the commit. Just one email for the new branch. -- Joel