On Dec 4, 2012, at 19:25 , 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? > test-for-unexported-functions - @jan ? This one doesn’t have a JIRA and is a dev-branch. We could ask to prefix them with the dev handle, but this ruling is getting out of hand. The purpose is to see how we can implement that we can etap-test module- private functions. > docs - which I will clean up once we are OK on the docs merge. +1. > 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. I did some pruning a few weeks back. We currently don’t have any superfluous branches around. I don’t want to restrict usage of branches, we should use them free and loose. Barring the naming rules for branches that have a JIRA issue attached. Can we get back to shipping 1.3.0 now? Cheers Jan --
