Re: [mdt-ocl.dev] bug and archive branches

[Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

I don't understand your proposal. It takes me about 1 minute per bug to 
check with Bugzilla whether it's really active. This becomes unscalable 
once there are 100 bug branches. With the renaming, I know that I lose 
no significant history by deleting the archive branches, and there are 
only a modest 10, hopefully decreasing to 5, active bug branches to 
check for deletion when I want further pruning.

    Regards

        Ed


On 16/08/2011 23:10, Axel Uhl wrote:
> Just to be clear: I don't mind getting the bug/* branches when 
> fetching. I regard them useful information when it comes to 
> understanding the topology of bug fixes and the creation of 
> attachments for bugs. I find the duplication that happens due to 
> renaming them to "archive/*" somewhat annoying. If the only reason for 
> the rename is telling whether a bug branch is still open, couldn't we 
> instead refer to Bugzilla and the merge topology in git to get the 
> same information?
>
> -- Axel
>
> On 08/16/2011 10:37 PM, Ed Willink wrote:
> > Hi Axel
> >
> > It's not perfect.
> >
> > I have decluttered most of my bug branches by moving them to archive
> > branches, so wherever you see any archive branch you may delete the
> > corresponding remote tracking branch so that it stays gone. You may also
> > delete all the remote tracking archive branches so that the EGIT history
> > cleans up. Unfortunately the archive branches are still upstream so they
> > keep coming back. Maybe a clever fetch config would not fetch them.
> >
> > Some of the archive branches can probably be deleted. I doubt any of
> > them will be useful after 3 months of archive.
> >
> > I encourage you and Adolfo to endeavour to close out bug/branches so
> > that they can be archived.
> >
> > The "zzbenchmark" branch was an accident.
> >
> > The "benchmark" branch is now on my Github forked OCL repository; it
> > needs a CQ. See https://github.com/eclipse/ocl/network.
> >
> > The "int" branch is 'active' and will go before long.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Ed
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 16/08/2011 21:24, Axel Uhl wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > question regarding the archiving policy for bug branches: with
> > > regularly fetching the git, I end up with branch duplicates for the
> > > bug/archive branch tags. A fetch doesn't delete local branch tags when
> > > they once made it into a cloned repository. I would have to manually
> > > delete the bug/* branches after they got renamed in the central git
> > > into archive/*. I don't think this is practical. Would you share this
> > > observation? If so, we may re-consider the policy for bug branches.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > -- Axel
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > mdt-ocl.dev mailing list
> > > mdt-ocl.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-ocl.dev
> > >
> > >
> > > -----
> > > No virus found in this message.
> > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3838 - Release Date: 08/16/11
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mdt-ocl.dev mailing list
> > mdt-ocl.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-ocl.dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> mdt-ocl.dev mailing list
> mdt-ocl.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-ocl.dev
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3838 - Release Date: 08/16/11