On Sat, May 09 2009, martin f krafft wrote:

> also sprach Stefano Zacchiroli <z...@debian.org> [2009.05.07.1902 +0200]:
>> When I, as a newcomer of a given repo, do "git tag" I know I'm
>> looking at a lot of "not current" information. On the contrary,
>> when I do "git branch" I start trying figure out what each branch
>> means. Having around a lot of no longer used branches is very
>> annoying in that respect.
> Keep in mind that the branches accumulate remotely, so you'd have to
> pass -r or -a to git-branch to be exposed to them.


> Obviously, any curious newcomer will do that, but then, a sane
> convention like Manoj hinted at will help, because you'd have to be
> amazingly curious to realy wonder about branches in the obsolete/*
> namespace.
> Anyway, unfortunately, published branches cannot be renamed with
> Git, or retired, or anything of that sort, so the concern is valid:

        Why not?

 git checkout upstream
 git checkout -b topic--obsolete-later
 git push --all

        At this point,  topic--obsolete-later and
 origin/topic--obsolete-later exist.

        Upstream abso\rbes the topic branch, so it is now obsolete.

 git checkout     topic--obsolete-later
 git checkout -b  old-obsolete-now
 git push --all

 git branch -d topic--obsolete-later
 git push origin :topic--obsolete-later
 git remote prune origin

        Seems to me the topic--obsolete-later is pretty much retired.

> you'd have to start a new feature branch as obsolete/new-feature to
> be able to declare it obsolete later on, at which point we might
> just as well not use the namespace. :)

        This sounds wrong to me. What am I missing?


Coward, n. one who in a perilous emergency thinks with his legs. Ambrose
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

vcs-pkg-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to