I like this "attic" idea better, resurrecting something is easier if
you can find that it ever existed (w/o diving into svn history, à la
"svn delete").

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Stefan Eissing
<stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote:
> Thanks Greg. The proposed change is purely aestetic. You could make a
> dir /branches/attic" and move all candidates there. People wanting to
> "resurrect" them can simply move them back. This is not RCS.
>
>> Am 25.10.2017 um 20:21 schrieb Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> To be clear: "delete" simply means "no longer seen in HEAD". This is version 
>> control. The data cannot truly be deleted, so it can always be revived. Or 
>> reviewed.
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2017 12:31, "Marion & Christophe JAILLET" 
>> <christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> Just to mention that before giving a +1, I made a copy of these repositories 
>> in order to dig later on, in order to see if something useful seems to be 
>> there.
>> Don't have that much time these days to play with httpd, but will do and 
>> will report anything that looks valuable.
>>
>> CJ
>>
>>
>> Le 25/10/2017 à 14:29, Jim Jagielski a écrit :
>> Are there anything of "value" in any of those branches?
>>
>> If not, prune away!
>>
>> On Oct 24, 2017, at 9:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Steffen <i...@apachelounge.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:26, Steffen wrote:
>>
>> Can someone clean up the not needed anymore  backports/branches
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/
>>
>> httpd 2.4.1 was tagged at r1243503.
>>
>> I'd propose we start by pruning all working branches not updated since this 
>> tag.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to