+1 for cleanup On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 9:53 AM Ruben Q L <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 for the cleanup. > > Best, > Ruben > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 7:27 AM Alessandro Solimando < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 from me as well, keeping unused branches around is only confusing. > > > > Best regards, > > Alessandro > > > > On Sun 22 Jan 2023, 22:58 Julian Hyde, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > There’s probably a tag for each release but let’s make sure before we > > drop > > > the branch. If any branch just has a ‘prepare for next iteration’ > commit > > > following the release tag I’m fine dropping that commit. > > > > > > Julian > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2023, at 1:05 PM, Francis Chuang < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 for dropping them. We should do this for both calcite and > > > calcite-avatica (there shouldn't be any dangling branches for > > > calcite-avatica-go). > > > > > > > > On 23/01/2023 7:13 am, Stamatis Zampetakis wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > > > >> Apart from the main, site, and possibly one or two other branches, > all > > > the > > > >> rest are not used by anyone unless I am missing something. > > > >> Many of them (branch-X.Y) were generated during past releases but > this > > > >> pattern stopped some time ago. > > > >> It is not a big deal keeping them around but it can be confusing for > > new > > > >> comers (.e.g., we still have the master branch around there) and > tools > > > >> operating at repo level. > > > >> The most recent example is the INFRA team informing us about the use > > of > > > >> Travis in our repos I assume due to the presence of .travis.yml file > > in > > > >> branch-X.Y branches. > > > >> Are there any reasons for keeping them around? If not how about > > dropping > > > >> them. > > > >> Best, > > > >> Stamatis > > > > > > > > > -- Best regards, Sergey
