On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dave Cottlehuber <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4 December 2012 19:08, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 > > > > > > On 4 December 2012 17:55, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hey all, > >> > >> just a heads up, the scheme for branch names we agreed on > >> is: 1532-feature-add-docs No underscores. Please follow > >> this. > >> > >> The fact that the cors branch doesn’t follow this is a > >> historic artefact that I thought wasn’t worth cleaning > >> up, but it looks I was wrong. > > We have 3 branches that are out of kilter, I've fixed them up now, > 431, 1346, 1536 respectively. > > That leaves: > > new-security-object - which I can't see in master - any idea what this > relates to @davisp? > It was work on giving _security objects a revision tree. Quite complicated and exists on my GitHub fork. Feel free to delete it. > test-for-unexported-functions - @jan ? > docs - which I will clean up once we are OK on the docs merge. > > Finally, I've a suggestion - to keep the working list of branches > short, but still have the actual commits available if needed, we could > tag branches like docs or cors that have had significant intermediary > work. The tags ensure that despite the branch being removed, the > commits will not be garbage collected. Or just get rid of the branches > completely if others think that's better. > > A+ > Dave >
