Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > You could make a dir /branches/attic" and move all candidates there. People > wanting to "resurrect" them can simply move them back. This is not RCS. +1
Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)
Am 26.10.2017 um 10:30 schrieb Yann Ylavic: I like this "attic" idea better, resurrecting something is easier if you can find that it ever existed (w/o diving into svn history, à la "svn delete"). +1
Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > I like this "attic" idea better, resurrecting something is easier if > you can find that it ever existed (w/o diving into svn history, à la > "svn delete"). +1
Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)
I like this "attic" idea better, resurrecting something is easier if you can find that it ever existed (w/o diving into svn history, à la "svn delete"). On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > Thanks Greg. The proposed change is purely aestetic. You could make a > dir /branches/attic" and move all candidates there. People wanting to > "resurrect" them can simply move them back. This is not RCS. > >> Am 25.10.2017 um 20:21 schrieb Greg Stein : >> >> To be clear: "delete" simply means "no longer seen in HEAD". This is version >> control. The data cannot truly be deleted, so it can always be revived. Or >> reviewed. >> >> On Oct 25, 2017 12:31, "Marion & Christophe JAILLET" >> wrote: >> Just to mention that before giving a +1, I made a copy of these repositories >> in order to dig later on, in order to see if something useful seems to be >> there. >> Don't have that much time these days to play with httpd, but will do and >> will report anything that looks valuable. >> >> CJ >> >> >> Le 25/10/2017 à 14:29, Jim Jagielski a écrit : >> Are there anything of "value" in any of those branches? >> >> If not, prune away! >> >> On Oct 24, 2017, at 9:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Steffen wrote: >> On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:26, Steffen wrote: >> >> Can someone clean up the not needed anymore backports/branches >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/ >> >> httpd 2.4.1 was tagged at r1243503. >> >> I'd propose we start by pruning all working branches not updated since this >> tag. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >
Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)
Thanks Greg. The proposed change is purely aestetic. You could make a dir /branches/attic" and move all candidates there. People wanting to "resurrect" them can simply move them back. This is not RCS. > Am 25.10.2017 um 20:21 schrieb Greg Stein : > > To be clear: "delete" simply means "no longer seen in HEAD". This is version > control. The data cannot truly be deleted, so it can always be revived. Or > reviewed. > > On Oct 25, 2017 12:31, "Marion & Christophe JAILLET" > wrote: > Just to mention that before giving a +1, I made a copy of these repositories > in order to dig later on, in order to see if something useful seems to be > there. > Don't have that much time these days to play with httpd, but will do and will > report anything that looks valuable. > > CJ > > > Le 25/10/2017 à 14:29, Jim Jagielski a écrit : > Are there anything of "value" in any of those branches? > > If not, prune away! > > On Oct 24, 2017, at 9:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Steffen wrote: > On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:26, Steffen wrote: > > Can someone clean up the not needed anymore backports/branches > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/ > > httpd 2.4.1 was tagged at r1243503. > > I'd propose we start by pruning all working branches not updated since this > tag. > > Thoughts? > >
Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)
To be clear: "delete" simply means "no longer seen in HEAD". This is version control. The data cannot truly be deleted, so it can always be revived. Or reviewed. On Oct 25, 2017 12:31, "Marion & Christophe JAILLET" < christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr> wrote: > Just to mention that before giving a +1, I made a copy of these > repositories in order to dig later on, in order to see if something useful > seems to be there. > Don't have that much time these days to play with httpd, but will do and > will report anything that looks valuable. > > CJ > > > Le 25/10/2017 à 14:29, Jim Jagielski a écrit : > >> Are there anything of "value" in any of those branches? >> >> If not, prune away! >> >> On Oct 24, 2017, at 9:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Steffen wrote: >>> On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:26, Steffen wrote: Can someone clean up the not needed anymore backports/branches http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/ httpd 2.4.1 was tagged at r1243503. >>> >>> I'd propose we start by pruning all working branches not updated since >>> this tag. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >> >> >
Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)
Just to mention that before giving a +1, I made a copy of these repositories in order to dig later on, in order to see if something useful seems to be there. Don't have that much time these days to play with httpd, but will do and will report anything that looks valuable. CJ Le 25/10/2017 à 14:29, Jim Jagielski a écrit : Are there anything of "value" in any of those branches? If not, prune away! On Oct 24, 2017, at 9:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Steffen wrote: On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:26, Steffen wrote: Can someone clean up the not needed anymore backports/branches http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/ httpd 2.4.1 was tagged at r1243503. I'd propose we start by pruning all working branches not updated since this tag. Thoughts?
Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)
Are there anything of "value" in any of those branches? If not, prune away! > On Oct 24, 2017, at 9:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Steffen wrote: >> >> On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:26, Steffen wrote: >> >> Can someone clean up the not needed anymore backports/branches >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/ >> > > httpd 2.4.1 was tagged at r1243503. > > I'd propose we start by pruning all working branches not updated since this > tag. > > Thoughts?
Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)
Am 24.10.2017 um 23:05 schrieb William A Rowe Jr: On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Steffen wrote: On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:26, Steffen wrote: Can someone clean up the not needed anymore backports/branches http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/ httpd 2.4.1 was tagged at r1243503. I'd propose we start by pruning all working branches not updated since this tag. Thoughts? To clarify; this list consists of; Last rev – Last modified – Branch 371484 11 years async-read-dev/ 367678 11 years authz-dev/ 446636 11 years cache-refactor/ 369019 11 years execd-dev/ 393955 11 years fcgi-proxy-dev/ 8095458 years httpd-2.2-proxy/ 431328 11 years httpd-proxy-scoreboard/ 1200612 5 years input-filter-dev/ 171035 12 years listen-protocol/ 151147 12 years proxy-reqbody/ 1150173 6 years revert-ap-ldap/ 7236558 years wombat-integration/ +1, prune. Rainer
Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)
+1 Le 24/10/2017 à 23:05, William A Rowe Jr a écrit : On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Steffen wrote: On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:26, Steffen wrote: Can someone clean up the not needed anymore backports/branches http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/ httpd 2.4.1 was tagged at r1243503. I'd propose we start by pruning all working branches not updated since this tag. Thoughts? To clarify; this list consists of; Last rev – Last modified – Branch 371484 11 years async-read-dev/ 367678 11 years authz-dev/ 446636 11 years cache-refactor/ 369019 11 years execd-dev/ 393955 11 years fcgi-proxy-dev/ 8095458 years httpd-2.2-proxy/ 431328 11 years httpd-proxy-scoreboard/ 1200612 5 years input-filter-dev/ 171035 12 years listen-protocol/ 151147 12 years proxy-reqbody/ 1150173 6 years revert-ap-ldap/ 7236558 years wombat-integration/
Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Steffen wrote: >> >> On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:26, Steffen wrote: >> >> Can someone clean up the not needed anymore backports/branches >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/ >> > > httpd 2.4.1 was tagged at r1243503. > > I'd propose we start by pruning all working branches not updated since this > tag. > > Thoughts? To clarify; this list consists of; Last rev – Last modified – Branch 371484 11 years async-read-dev/ 367678 11 years authz-dev/ 446636 11 years cache-refactor/ 369019 11 years execd-dev/ 393955 11 years fcgi-proxy-dev/ 8095458 years httpd-2.2-proxy/ 431328 11 years httpd-proxy-scoreboard/ 1200612 5 years input-filter-dev/ 171035 12 years listen-protocol/ 151147 12 years proxy-reqbody/ 1150173 6 years revert-ap-ldap/ 7236558 years wombat-integration/
