[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [mdt-ocl.dev] GIT Practice
|
I'm not arguing either way. "bug" is shorter, but we have "plugins",
"features", "examples", "tests" so "bugs" makes sense.
Argh. Maybe I jumped the gun. As you saw in my last mail, I already
moved to bug/nnn. Can you confirm once more that you'd like "bugs" and
let me know what you'd like me to do? I can also move your branches to
bugs/nnn. Just let me know.
In principle, nothing should be removed from the repository, but it
might be helpful to rename bugs/nnnn as merged/bugs/nnnn once it is dead.
Causes a bit of a hassle when merging. It would mean that after pushing
to bugs/nnn and then "git checkout master" and "git merge bugs/nnn" one
would have to do a "git branch -m bugs/nnn merged/bugs/nnn" followed by
a "git push origin merged/bugs/nnn:merged/bugs/nnn" and "git push origin
:bugs/nnn" to delete the old branch. I'm not sure why that would be
worth the effort. The bugzilla tells us which branches are open and
which ones aren't. GIT tells us which ones are already merged and which
ones arent.
Should we rename historic branches to have hierarchy: e.g.
maintenance/3.0?
Feel free :-)
I don't feel familiar enough with the technology to take such actions.
I'm just raising queries as to what might be a good idea. If this works
and merged/bugs is a good idea, then we want to establish a short list
of preferred branch paths. Surely we're not leading the way here?
Let me know which commits you'd like to have as which branches and I can
issue the necessary git commands.
Best,
-- Axel
