Cool, thanks!
> On Apr 15, 2019, at 12:12 AM, Adrien Grand <[email protected]> wrote: > > This has been implemented: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18192. > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 2:41 PM Gus Heck <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Slightly behind on mails, but I'd like to Echo Erik ... +1 for protection -1 >> for removal. >> >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:22 AM Erick Erickson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Protecting those branches would answer the question “If we were to change >>> the 6.6 branch in order to release a 6.6.7, should I put the changes in 6x >>> too” question with “no” ;). >>> >>> Also, if anyone really wanted to re-open 6x they’d have a known state. >>> Well, not 6x since I’m certain some things have been committed there that >>> haven’t been committed to 6_6… Er… See what I mean? But going forward…. >>> >>> In some weird case where we wanted to release a 6.7 (which I don’t see >>> happening frankly), we could open up the 6x branch again and bump the >>> branch on a case-by-case basis. After “frank and open" discussions about >>> how that’s not our policy.... >>> >>> In general I’m in favor of being unable to screw something up so protecting >>> all the branches we shouldn’t modify from writes is a +1. >>> >>> I’m -1 for removing branches. >>> >>> Erick >>> >>> P.S. And I do note that you carefully did _not_ include 6_6 or 7_7 so we >>> can still do the point releases. >>> >>> >>>> On Apr 5, 2019, at 7:47 AM, Adrien Grand <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Removing branches proved a bit controversial in the past, >>>> seehttps://markmail.org/message/6ah3m6zd6v3ik3ie for instance. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Shawn Heisey <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 4/5/2019 3:19 AM, Adrien Grand wrote: >>>>>> Apparently it is possible to ask INFRA to mark branches as >>>>>> protected[1]. Should we do it for branches that are not expecting new >>>>>> releases anymore? I think it would make things less trappy. For >>>>>> instance, backporting to branch_7x is almost for sure a mistake since >>>>>> we are not going to release lucene/solr 7.8. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18109 >>>>>> >>>>>> What would you think of protecting the following branches: >>>>>> branch_3x >>>>>> branch_4x >>>>>> branch_5_4 >>>>>> branch_5_5 >>>>>> branch_5x >>>>>> branch_6_0 >>>>>> branch_6_1 >>>>>> branch_6_2 >>>>>> branch_6_3 >>>>>> branch_6_4 >>>>>> branch_6_5 >>>>>> branch_6x >>>>>> branch_7_0 >>>>>> branch_7_1 >>>>>> branch_7_2 >>>>>> branch_7_3 >>>>>> branch_7_4 >>>>>> branch_7_5 >>>>>> branch_7_6 >>>>>> branch_7x >>>>> >>>>> In the SVN days, branches were simply deleted when we were through >>>>> cutting releases from them. Deleted branches all came back when we >>>>> converted to git. >>>>> >>>>> Is protecting them the only way to maintain the history? If so, then >>>>> I'm +1. Does deleting them like we did on SVN make it impossible to "go >>>>> back in time" in the repo? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Shawn >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Adrien >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> >> >> -- >> http://www.the111shift.com > > > > -- > Adrien > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
