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
