Make sure to run "git fetch --all --prune" to update your refs. I deleted some of those already.
On 29 September 2014 08:30, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > I deleted branch LOG4J2-589 now that all the commits have been merged > into master. > > Other branches that may be candidates for deletion: > > * 2.0-beta1 - very old (2 years). Is there anything there worth keeping? > * LOG4J2-577 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-577> (Refactor > LoggerContext initialization/destruction code) - ticket is closed. Should > we keep the branch? > * LOG4J2-608 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-608> (Add > support for JUL) - implemented & merged into master. Should be okay to > delete. > * LOG4J2-745 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-745> (Plugins > can cause ConverterKeys collisions with unpredictable results) - Resolved & > merged into master. Ok to delete? > * LOG4J2-809 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-809> (Move > caller class reflection utils to API) - Closed & merged into master. Ok to > delete? > * LOG4J2-814 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-814> (Configuration > file loading should be abstracted into a sort of ResourceLoader interface) > - Closed. Keep the branch? > * experimental - seems abandoned. Matt, is this bookmark worth keeping? > * messaging-module - (LOG4J2-815 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-815>?) - seems merged into > master. Matt, okay to delete? > > > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Cleared out a few of those branches (at least the ones that I put up >> there in the first place). Still have the new-levels branch (not sure >> about), 2.0-beta1 (sounds rather outdated), and LOG4J2-609 (still looks to >> be in progress). >> >> On 23 September 2014 12:52, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> It doesn't delete history ever unless you jump through hoops to do so. >>> >>> On 23 September 2014 10:41, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I deleted the topic branch for LOG4J2-431 because it has been merged >>>>> into master so we don't need the bookmark any more. >>>>> >>>>> I gather that it is a common workflow to delete topic branches like >>>>> this after the work is done and they're merged into master. Shall we adopt >>>>> that workflow also? >>>>> >>>>> LOG4J2-577 and LOG4J2-809 are also closed in Jira. Does that mean that >>>>> the topic branches for these issues can be deleted? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Does that mean that code is 100% gone (after GC'd) because it is not >>>> reachable from a Git HEAD? >>>> >>>> Gary >>>> >>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >> > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
