On 17 February 2015 at 10:44, Eelco Dolstra <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On 16/02/15 18:43, Matthias Beyer wrote: > >> what do you think about removing the old branches, as listed below (I >> guess all before 12-2014 or something) should be removed,... > > No, they should not be removed, unless they were merged. Deleting history kind > of defeats the purpose of having a version management system...
Unmerged branches is a "grey area", IMHO. If a branch was never merged (and was not a stable/maint branch), the code is (in a way) no more part of project history than any of the nixpkgs forks and topic-branches floating around on the internet today. (Not all forks get merged, and unmerged forks become less and less important as time passes.) I must emphasize that this is from the viewpoint of "a newcomer" to the project. I realize that those of you that have contributed to those branches may feel differently about them. I think of the old branches in nixpkgs more as traces of its more "centralized" days. (Many of the branches are from the subversion era, right?) > However, we could rename dead branches to something like attic/<name>. Yes, that's sounds better than what we have now. Alternatively, we could make a "historic" repo clone (like Nathan Bijnens suggests). nixpkgs-historic? Then we have an option to clean up some less used branches/tags in the mainline repo. - Bjørn _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
