2012/3/21 Diederik van Liere dvanli...@gmail.com:
Hi y'all,
With the pending git migration upon us,is this also the right time to
think about naming conventions for git branches or is there nu such a
need?
I can imagine that a branch aimed at fixing a bug could be named
B12345, or something like that. Or are 'descriptive' names good
enough? One reason to have naming conventions is that it would make it
easier in the future to run scripts to collect stats on particular
branches. That would be much harder in a complete freetext
environment.
In the few commits i did until now, i usually did called it something
like bug_31817_add_bdi_to_allowed_tags. Nobody complained yet. I'm
OK with 2012/bug_31817_add_bdi_to_allowed_tags, too, or anything
else that will be decided.
When i use `git review -d' on a change that was in the aforementioned
branch, another branch called review/amire80/bug/31817 is created,
so i suppose that Gerrit identified the bug number (or maybe somebody
did it manually and i missed it). I don't quite understand why two
branches are created for pretty much the same thing. Maybe i should
create a branch called review/amire80/bug/31817 in the first place?
Or maybe i shouldn't use `git review -d' at all?
And, there's also the issue of several branches per one bug, so it's
possible that it's not enough.
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
