On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Dominic Evans <dominic.ev...@uk.ibm.com>
wrote:

> Rafael Schloming <r...@alum.mit.edu> wrote on 16/02/2015 20:02:07:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Alan Conway <acon...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I work on a mix of SVN and GIT-based projects so I switch between
> trunk
> > > and master a lot. Proton used to be an SVN based project. I repeatedly
> > > stub my toe on the old "trunk" branch which has been left lying around
> > > with some random commit at it's head.
> > >
> > > Can we please do any one of the following:
> > > - delete it.
> > > - rename it to something else.
> > > - make it a symbolic reference to master.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not much of a git expert, so I don't know what the preferred option
> > would be, but I'm +1 for killing it in one form or another.
> >
> > --Rafael
>
> +1 for deleting it
>
> Whilst we're on the topic, could we delete the stale branches currently
> held
> on origin? Some are *very* out-of-date compared with master, see
> https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/branches/stale
>
> Similarly, could we also delete the 0.1-0.9-alpha-1 version number
> branches?
> Unless we're backporting fixes, it probably doesn't make sense to have
> version
> branches. Currently we have identically named tags (although 0.9-alpha-1
> is missing),
> and tags have the advantage of being immutable, whereas anyone could
> accidentally push to a version branch.
>

I certainly don't object to deleting stale branches. The 0.9-alpha-1 branch
is an artifact from my first attempt at a release script for git. I hadn't
quite figured out how to get tags to work properly, so we have a branch
instead, but there isn't much point in keeping it around.

--Rafael

Reply via email to