Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] Deleting obsolete branches


following-up on this minor cleanup of some of our old branches.  I'm about to push the following branch/tag
changes to the CDT repo.

The history  for branch sd90 can be found from its final merge point: 5a04c15baab806be23f95c343c75659f4158db78
I therefore deleted ‘sd90’ which was pointing to a commit already on master.  It can be re-created from that commit.

I replaced the branch GDBStandalone with a tag ‘GDBStandalone’, which I verified, does keep the history.
I replaced 'bug_197989' with a tag 'OldSolution_bug_197989'.  I believe this code was obsoleted by branch 
'bug_197989_B' (c2cec226b35aeae02216daa1153727b95419e215), but I wasn't sure if the old history could
be useful, so I kept it.

I deleted ‘MultiProcess’ and ‘NewMultiProcess’ which had been created by mistake and whose code was
pushed to master shortly after.

I deleted 'bug_197989_B' which was merged in master at c2cec226b35aeae02216daa1153727b95419e215
I deleted 'bug_299911' which was merged in master at e39899ec2329c1b44c7a77c520ba3cf2481d6d76
I deleted 'bug_45203' which was merged in master at 48c9cc0b7377f236440209733bea0e6f8753ae9e

There a bunch of cdt_*_* branches also.  I think those should be converted into tags (if those tags don't
exist already).  I haven't done that just yet but maybe later.  Let me know if you disagree.



From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc Khouzam
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 2:14 PM
To: 'CDT General developers list.'
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Deleting obsolete branches

Thanks Andrew, that is a good point I hadn’t considered.

In the case of sd90, it was merged into master, so the history will remain; in fact, the branch sd90 (9bc85c77a33)
is actually a commit on the master branch, so it does not add much value (unless it is being used as a tag?)

I think (but I’ll check to be sure) that the other branches are in the same situation, except for the GDBStandalone,
which was not merged, but something like squashed into a single commit.  In that case, keeping the branch
seems a good idea so as to not loose the history.

If I used a tag instead of a branch, would it be as effective in keeping the history?  It would allow to keep our
branches to a minimum and yet, have all the history.  I’ll look into it.

Thanks for the quick answers

From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Gvozdev
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 1:53 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Deleting obsolete branches

Hi Marc,
sd90 branch should stay in repository as it keeps the history of changes. Master branch does not keep that history as it was a merge, not rebasing or cherrypicking.


On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi (mostly Jeff, Mikhail, Andrew and Sergey),

I had a quick mishap with the repo this morning which required me to remove a branch I had pushed by mistake.
This made me think I could take the opportunity to clean up some old branches that seem useless.
I find that the more clutter we have in CDT, the harder it is for new-comers to figure how things work.

After investigation I'd like to start with the below.
Let me know if you want to keep those branches.

remotes/origin/GDBStandalone  (I believe this was made as a new commit that was pushed to master)

remotes/origin/MultiProcess (created by mistake, feature is in master)
remotes/origin/NewMultiProcess (created by mistake, feature is in master)

remotes/origin/sd90 (merged into master)
remotes/origin/bug_197989_B (merged into master)
remotes/origin/bug_299911 (merged into master)
remotes/origin/bug_45203 (merged into master)

remotes/origin/bug_197989 (seems obsolete, replaced by _B branch which went into master)


cdt-dev mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top