I could go either way on this as well but thing problem the delete does solve is making sure it's clear what branches are no longer valid/active. If we keep the branch, is there a way to annotate it so that people will know quickly that it is inactive/done?
Chris On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Franklin, Matthew B. <[email protected]>wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Ate Douma [mailto:[email protected]] > >Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:10 AM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: Removing Bootstrap Branch > > > >On 05/15/2012 02:31 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote: > >> Now that the bootstrap branch has been integrated into trunk, it needs > to > >be deleted. Assuming lazy consensus, I will delete the branch today or > >tomorrow. > > > >Although I don't really have an objection to delete that branch, why > would it > >'need' to be deleted? > > > >Commonly branches are simply left as they are, retaining east access to > their > >history for who might need to review it still sometime later. > >In this case that might not be so much of a need for, so I'm personally > fine > >with deleting this branch (or not). But for the more generic case I think > it > >might be better not making that a default/expected process. > > In the case where the branch was created for the purpose of working a > large new feature in that would have left trunk in an inconsistent state, I > think deletion once completed is appropriate. In this case, the branch has > no functional use once the feature is reintegrated. > > SVN will keep all the history in prior revisions, so we won't lose any > information; but, it won't be visible when browsing the HEAD. > > For other branch cases, I could see leaving it open. In the end, it isn't > a big deal either way, unless we get a large number of branches. > > Thoughts? > > > > >Ate > > > >> > >> -Matt > >
