| Re: [cdt-dev] Deleting obsolete branches |
|
What's a dead git repo? As long as it has content that someone may want, we can't really get rid of it.
Doug.
________________________________________________________________________
From: Aleksandar Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon Jul 28 2014 09:48:47 GMT-0400 (EDT) To: CDT General developers list. <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Deleting obsolete branches Please consider also removing dead git repos
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=434613 while cleaning up. Alexander Kurtakov Red Hat Eclipse team ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marc Khouzam" <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "CDT DEV (cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx)" <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 4:38:01 PM > Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Deleting obsolete branches > > Hi, > > following-up on this minor cleanup of
some of our old branches. I'm about to > push the following branch/tag > changes to the CDT repo. > > The history for branch sd90 can be found from its final merge point: > 5a04c15baab806be23f95c343c75659f4158db78 > I therefore deleted ‘sd90’ which was pointing
to a commit already on master. > It can be re-created from that commit. > > I replaced the branch GDBStandalone with a tag ‘GDBStandalone’, which I > verified, does keep the history. > I replaced 'bug_197989' with a tag 'OldSolution_bug_197989'. I believe
this > code was obsoleted by branch > 'bug_197989_B' (c2cec226b35aeae02216daa1153727b95419e215), but I wasn't sure > if the old history could > be useful, so I kept it. > > I deleted ‘MultiProcess’ and ‘NewMultiProcess’ which had been created by > mistake
and whose code was > pushed to master shortly after. > > I deleted 'bug_197989_B' which was merged in master at > c2cec226b35aeae02216daa1153727b95419e215 > I deleted 'bug_299911' which was merged in master at > e39899ec2329c1b44c7a77c520ba3cf2481d6d76 > I
deleted 'bug_45203' which was merged in master at > 48c9cc0b7377f236440209733bea0e6f8753ae9e > > There a bunch of cdt_*_* branches also. I think those should be converted > into tags (if those tags don't > exist already). I haven't done that just yet but maybe
later. Let me know > if you disagree. > > Thanks > > Marc > > > From:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Marc Khouzam > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 2:14 PM > To: 'CDT General developers list.' > Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Deleting obsolete branches > > Thanks Andrew, that is a good
point I hadn’t considered. > > In the case of sd90, it was merged into master, so the history will remain; > in fact, the branch sd90 (9bc85c77a33) > is actually a commit on the master branch, so it does not add much value > (unless it is being used as a tag?)
> > I think (but I’ll check to be sure) that the other branches are in the same > situation, except for the GDBStandalone, > which was not merged, but something like squashed into a single commit. In > that case, keeping the branch > seems a good idea so
as to not loose the history. > > If I used a tag instead of a branch, would it be as effective in keeping the > history? It would allow to keep our > branches to a minimum and yet, have all the history. I’ll look into it. > > Thanks for the quick answers
> > From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Andrew Gvozdev > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 1:53 PM > To: CDT General developers list. > Subject: Re:
[cdt-dev] Deleting obsolete branches > > Hi Marc, > sd90 branch should stay in repository as it keeps the history of changes. > Master branch does not keep that history as it was a merge, not rebasing or > cherrypicking. > > Thanks, > Andrew > > On Fri, Jul
25, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > Hi (mostly Jeff, Mikhail, Andrew and Sergey), > > I had a quick mishap with the repo this morning which required me to remove
a > branch I had pushed by mistake. > This made me think I could take the opportunity to clean up some old branches > that seem useless. > I find that the more clutter we have in CDT, the harder it is for new-comers > to figure how things work. > > After investigation
I'd like to start with the below. > Let me know if you want to keep those branches. > > remotes/origin/GDBStandalone (I believe this was made as a new commit that > was pushed to master) > > remotes/origin/MultiProcess (created by mistake, feature is in master)
> remotes/origin/NewMultiProcess (created by mistake, feature is in master) > > remotes/origin/sd90 (merged into master) > remotes/origin/bug_197989_B (merged into master) > remotes/origin/bug_299911 (merged into master) > remotes/origin/bug_45203 (merged
into master) > > remotes/origin/bug_197989 (seems obsolete, replaced by _B branch which went > into master) > > Thanks > > Marc > _______________________________________________ > cdt-dev mailing list >
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from > this list, visit >
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev > > _______________________________________________ > cdt-dev mailing list >
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from > this list, visit >
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev _______________________________________________ cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
|