Le 26/09/13 00:46, Chad a écrit :
What's actually the problem with expanding branches?
To me at least, it makes it harder to see what's actually deployed at
a given time. Try `git branch -r` on core. We're at 86 branches now...that's
172 if you've got two remotes. It's only going to get
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Le 26/09/13 00:46, Chad a écrit :
What's actually the problem with expanding branches?
To me at least, it makes it harder to see what's actually deployed at
a given time. Try `git branch -r` on core. We're at
So in the interest of keeping our branches from expanding forever I'm
thinking we should
stop creating new branches for each deploy cycle.
Instead, I'm thinking we should keep like three wmf branches. Let's call
them wmf-foo,
wmf-bar and wmf-baz for purposes of this e-mail, we can bikeshed later.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
wmf-foo - 1.22wmf19
wmf-bar - 1.22wmf20
wmf-baz - 1.22wmf21
wmf-foo - 1.22wmf22
wmf-bar - 1.22wmf23
This looks like it's exactly the same concept as slot0/slot1/slot2 in
Ryan's git-deploy proposal.
The objection that I
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
So in the interest of keeping our branches from expanding forever I'm
thinking we should stop creating new branches for each deploy cycle.
What's actually the problem with expanding branches?
Instead, I'm thinking we
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
wmf-foo - 1.22wmf19
wmf-bar - 1.22wmf20
wmf-baz - 1.22wmf21
wmf-foo - 1.22wmf22
wmf-bar - 1.22wmf23
This looks like it's exactly the same
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
So in the interest of keeping our branches from expanding forever I'm
thinking we should stop creating new branches for each deploy cycle.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
I actually like this idea a lot and it's way less confusing than my idea.
Unless anyone's got any objections I'm going to go ahead and do this
for all the 1.20 and 1.21 wmf branches.
Sounds good to me.
Roan
On 26.09.2013, 2:46 Chad wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org wrote:
What's actually the problem with expanding branches?
To me at least, it makes it harder to see what's actually deployed at
a given time. Try `git branch -r` on core. We're at 86
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Max Semenik maxsem.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26.09.2013, 2:46 Chad wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
What's actually the problem with expanding branches?
To me at least, it makes it harder to see what's
10 matches
Mail list logo
