Oh. Big difference! Thanks! On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 about), 2.0-beta1 (sounds rather outdated), and LOG4J2-609 (still looks to 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> >
