On 22 February 2015 at 18:05, Rok Garbas r...@garbas.si wrote:
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
I've cleaned up some merged branches.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Rok Garbas r...@garbas.si wrote:
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
On 17 February 2015 at 10:44, Eelco Dolstra eelco.dols...@logicblox.com 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,
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
On 18-02-2015 22:20:21, Vladimír Čunát wrote:
On 02/18/2015 09:51 AM, Nathan Bijnens wrote:
My vote is to remove merged branches without historical significance
(version 0.5 is a keeper, like upstart), and then any branches that
got their last push before August 2014 are renamed to
First make a fork with all history. Afterwards I like Wout's suggestion.
---
nat...@nathan.gs | nathan.gs
http://nathan.gs?utm_source=footerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=n |
@nathan_gs http://twitter.com/nathan_gs | linkedin.com/in/nbijnens
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Wout Mertens
My vote is to remove merged branches without historical significance
(version 0.5 is a keeper, like upstart), and then any branches that got
their last push before August 2014 are renamed to attic/...
That should make the github interface easier to navigate.
On 02/18/2015 09:51 AM, Nathan Bijnens wrote:
My vote is to remove merged branches without historical significance
(version 0.5 is a keeper, like upstart), and then any branches that
got their last push before August 2014 are renamed to attic/...
First make a fork with all
Might I ask, what is the point of stale code not being executed?
And if code is being written to sit stale on a branch, isn't that wasted talent?
Lastly (if there is no renaming attic/name) it just confuses people.
Having code merged into a canonical branch asap makes for faster
feedback cycles
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
Hi nixos maintainers,
what do you think about removing the old branches, as listed below (I
guess all before 12-2014 or something) should be removed,...
On 14-02-2015 13:47:40, Bjørn Forsman wrote:
List of all nixpkgs branches, sorted by date, and with the name of the
commiter that pushed the
I disagree, even if branches are old, we should not just delete them.
We could go over a list of those that are merged (git branch -r --merged
master), but still for example 'upstart' is a branch that was taken before
systemd has replaced it. Maybe it should be a tag.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at
We could go over a list of those that are merged (git branch -r --merged
master), but still for example 'upstart' is a branch that was taken before
systemd has replaced it. Maybe it should be a tag.
I made the suggestion that too experimental branches / new ideas etc
could be submitted to
Hi,
why are there so many branches in the nixpkgs repo? I mean, what are
they are for?
Maybe we should remove some of them,... I don't think, for example,
that
0.5-stable
upstart
or
test-1515
are even relevant anymore, are they?
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Kind regards,
Matthias
14 matches
Mail list logo
