Hi Koji-san, Let me clarify a little...
Try this command: svn log https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/manifoldcf/branches You will see log entries for every branch, including branch deletions: >>>>>> r1489317 | kwright | 2013-06-04 04:11:49 -0400 (Tue, 04 Jun 2013) | 1 line Remove unused branch. <<<<<< To find out what branch was removed by that commit: >>>>>> svn log -c 1489317 -v https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/manifoldcf/branches r1489317 | kwright | 2013-06-04 04:11:49 -0400 (Tue, 04 Jun 2013) | 1 line Changed paths: D /manifoldcf/branches/CONNECTORS-696 Remove unused branch. <<<<<< To find the predelete history of CONNECTORS-696: >>>>>> svn log --stop-on-copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/manifoldcf/branches/CONNECTORS-696@1489316 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r1488526 | minoru | 2013-06-01 09:19:56 -0400 (Sat, 01 Jun 2013) | 1 line Add file system output connector. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r1488525 | minoru | 2013-06-01 09:16:28 -0400 (Sat, 01 Jun 2013) | 1 line Add File system output connector ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r1488524 | minoru | 2013-06-01 09:15:25 -0400 (Sat, 01 Jun 2013) | 1 line ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r1488504 | minoru | 2013-06-01 07:37:35 -0400 (Sat, 01 Jun 2013) | 1 line Creating a branch of CONNECTOR-696 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Koji-san, > > I think the current process depends on the size of the change. For small > or medium-scale changes, a patch (or even a direct commit) is fine. For > something like an entire connector, however, it makes sense to create a > branch, since such a substantial patch may be a challenge to get right and > to review thoroughly. This is especially true when more than one person is > working collaboratively on the same ticket. > > As for this point: > > > >>>>>> > If no patch files are attched in JIRA, people in latter-day will have hard > time > to chase the history of improvement/communication cycle on the ticket. > <<<<<< > > SVN does maintain the history of the branch even after it is deleted. So > there is an audit trail, which is pretty obvious as long as people note > that a branch was indeed created. > > Karl > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Koji Sekiguchi <[email protected]>wrote: > >> MCF Committers, >> >> There seems to be an accepted practice in MCF community todays says that >> making a branch rather than attaching a patch for a new JIRA. >> >> But I'd like to look into a patch rather than a branch, because if the new >> function is acceptted, the diff is going to be merged, then the branch is >> removed. >> If no patch files are attched in JIRA, people in latter-day will have >> hard time >> to chase the history of improvement/communication cycle on the ticket. >> >> I'm positive using braches for development, but I'd like to see patches >> for some >> checkpoints. >> >> Thought? >> >> koji >> -- >> >> http://soleami.com/blog/automatically-acquiring-synonym-knowledge-from-wikipedia.html >> > >
