Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)

[William A Rowe Jr]

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?)

[Rainer Jung]

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?)

[Eric Covener]

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

AW: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)

[Plüm , Rüdiger , Vodafone Group]

+1

Regards

Rüdiger

> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Oktober 2017 10:31
> An: httpd-dev <dev@httpd.apache.org>
> Betreff: 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
> <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> 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 <gst...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> 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 <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Steffen <i...@apachelounge.com>
> 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?)

[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").

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?)

[Stefan Eissing]

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?)

[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" <
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?)

[Jim Jagielski]

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?)

[Rainer Jung]

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?)

[Marion & Christophe JAILLET]

+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?)

[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/

AW: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)

[Plüm , Rüdiger , Vodafone Group]

> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Oktober 2017 15:12
> An: httpd <dev@httpd.apache.org>
> Betreff: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)
> 
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Steffen <i...@apachelounge.com> 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?

+1

Regards

Rüdiger

Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)

[William A Rowe Jr]

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?