Ed,
+1. Let's see if the SR1 RC2 is smoothly done the next week, so that
I might spend some time sorting out the bugs and branches I have in
hands.... I think that some of them are solved and they could
probably be removed.
Regards,
Adolfo.
El 26/08/2011 9:58, Ed Willink escribió:
Hi
I think that we felt that archive branches might be useful for
retaining the history of a particular branch.
This does not appear to be the case. Once the successful branch is
rebased onto master, all the relevant history is 'merged', so
there is no particular use for the archive branch which is just an
end-of-activity marker. The true history is identifiable from the
[xxxxxx] commit comment prefixes and the compressed time recap at
the rebase transaction. If a real marker for the end-of-activity
is required then a tag is of course possible.
It seems that the only 'bug' branches worth keeping are those that
have not been exploited, so I propose that
bug/xxxxxx is a work in progress that will probably be exploited
archive/xxxxxx is a work abandoned, that might be revivable later
There should be very few archive/xxxxxx, and only a few
bug/xxxxxx.
Regards
Ed
|
