On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Max Bowsher <[email protected]> wrote: > Martin Pool wrote: >> 2009/9/14 Jonathan Lange <[email protected]>: >>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Tim Penhey <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:08:05 Martin Pool wrote: >>>>> On the other hand the overall branch state (as opposed to the mp >>>>> state) is generally boring and could probably be removed - but it may >>>>> be worth checking how many people use it to verify that. I think the >>>>> code team plan to drop it entirely. > >>>> We seriously looked into dropping it completely, but there was a reasonable >>>> number of people that do use the status. Primarily for experimental >>>> branches, >>>> but none the less, people do use it. > >>> I still think we can get the same effect through branch naming, and >>> should ditch explicit branch status. > > Renaming a branch is quite disruptive if more than a single person know > about it. There's no easy way to communicate the change. >
True. However, I wonder how often an experimental branch becomes non-experimental, and why you'd expect to have to communicate that to others without also wanting to do something involving merge proposals or bug updates or what have you. >> Or possibly a very easily editable branch tags field. >> >> So the upshot for the bugs page seems to be: it should show the mp if >> any, status and votes, and keep the other branch fields as they are. > > I like that I can currently view my branches sorted / filtered by > status, to get an at a glance overview of what branches I have of > various types. > I'm intrigued. Tell me more. jml _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
