Yep, great idea (tagging vs branch) I think post-merge pre-3.0 history will exist only on master branch regardless of tag vs branch. confirm?
I've removed bb10RemovePrompt, future, future-bb10. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Benn Mapes <benn.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > I like Carlos' idea of tagging master2 and deleting it. > > This cleans up the branches so no-one will mistakenly commit to it, but > also preserves the history and we can add a message to the tag explaining > what it was used for and why it was deleted. > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > Agree with Andrew, rename the branch to pre-3.0-history > > > > On 7/9/13 10:45 AM, "Carlos Santana" <csantan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >I propose to kill master 2 branch, and instead use a tag > "pre-3.0-history" > > > > > > > > >On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > > >wrote: > > > > > >> Good idea. Let's comment on which ones can be removed. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com > > >> >wrote: > > >> > > >> > Deleting some abandon branches might be a good cleanup exercise, and > > >>make > > >> > it clear to use 'master' > > >> > > > >> > - master2 > > >> > > > >> This we should keep around since it has a sane history. Let's rename > it > > >> though. Maybe to "pre-3.0-history" > > >> > > >> > - future > > >> > > > >> This can be removed. > > >> > > >> > - lazy > > >> > - merges > > >> > - bb10RemovePrompt > > >> > - future-bb10 > > >> > - dependencies > > >> > > > >> This was merged and can be removed. > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Thanks Andrew! > > >> > > > > >> > > Ian, will do. > > >> > > > > >> > > On 7/5/13 8:14 AM, "Ian Clelland" <iclell...@google.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > >Doh. I *just* submitted a pull req against master2. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >Fil -- let me know if you have any problems with it, and I'll > > >>resubmit > > >> > as > > >> > > >necessary. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Grieve > > >><agri...@chromium.org> > > >> > > >wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> Okay, I made master look like master2, but the commit log is > > >> > essentially > > >> > > >> lost. Have not removed master2. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> git rm -r . > > >> > > >> git checkout --theirs master2 -- . > > >> > > >> git commit -a > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Maybe lets now go back to committing to master, and keep > master2 > > >> > around > > >> > > >>for > > >> > > >> history's sake? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Michal Mocny > > >><mmo...@chromium.org> > > >> > > >>wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > (small correction, next was actually called future). > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > Also, I don't see any work being done on master. > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Michal Mocny > > >><mmo...@chromium.org > > >> > > > >> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > If master is in use, then I think that is a mistake. > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > As far as I'm aware, master branch should be "dead" right? > > >>We > > >> > had a > > >> > > >> > > 'next' branch that was for 3.0 work which diverged from > > >>master > > >> and > > >> > > >>the > > >> > > >> > > merge back was not clean (for various reasons), hence we > > >> > > >>"temporarily" > > >> > > >> > went > > >> > > >> > > with a master2 until we could just "overwrite" master. > Since > > >> that > > >> > > >> seems > > >> > > >> > to > > >> > > >> > > not be possible, Andrew is suggesting we go ahead with the > > >>not > > >> > clean > > >> > > >> > merge > > >> > > >> > > (history may look awkward), but do away with this > ridiculous > > >> > > >>situation. > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > Did I summarize that right? > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> So, what is the difference between master and master2? > Right > > >> now, > > >> > > >> > >> master from what I understand is in heavy use w/ tonnes of > > >>bugs > > >> > and > > >> > > >> > >> fixes. > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Ian Clelland < > > >> > iclell...@google.com > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > >> > We've had that ticket open for some time now, and Braden > > >>has > > >> > > >>tried > > >> > > >> on > > >> > > >> > a > > >> > > >> > >> > couple of occasions to get some movement on it, but > > >>there's > > >> > been > > >> > > >>no > > >> > > >> > >> action > > >> > > >> > >> > so far. > > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Filip Maj < > f...@adobe.com > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> If you want to give it a shot, go for it! > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> Didn't we have an INFRA issue filed for them to move > the > > >> > master > > >> > > >> HEAD > > >> > > >> > >> >> pointer to master2 and fix this for us? :P > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> On 7/4/13 9:23 AM, "Andrew Grieve" < > agri...@chromium.org > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >I feel that having master2 around is now causing us > more > > >> harm > > >> > > >>than > > >> > > >> > >> would > > >> > > >> > >> >> >be > > >> > > >> > >> >> >done if we just merged it into master. I'd like to > > >>merge it > > >> > > >>into > > >> > > >> > >> master, > > >> > > >> > >> >> >delete master2, and move on. > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Carlos Santana > > >> > <csantan...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > >Carlos Santana > > ><csantan...@gmail.com> > > > > >
