Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] bug and archive branches


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

personally, I see two primary use cases for the bug/* branches:

 - work on a fix for the bug
- understand a bug fix's history (this shows whether/where/when the fix was merged, but that's not my primary concern when I look at a bug's history).

I wouldn't use git as the primary source for understanding which bug is currently being worked on. I see Bugzilla as the means for this.

With this, and with regular fetch activities, I end up with bug/* branches and origin/bug/* branches which after the rename are duplicates of the corresponding archive/* and origin/archive/* branches. This clutters the list of branches in the local git of everyone fetching regularly and requires time for everyone locally to remove the now redundant bug/* branches. Besides, a quick glance at the local list of branches then cannot even be used to detect whether a bug is closed or not. This would require a "git ls-remote" instead (is this supported by eGit?).

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.

Deleting an archive branch may lose interesting history for developments on bug/* branches which so far haven't been merged into any other branch but then have been classified as WONTFIX or similar. Conversely, everyone probably knows on which bug branches he/she is actively working. Tracking can then be limited to those bug/* branches.

Therefore, I again would like to suggest to just not rename bug/* branches after merging.

-- Axel

Back to the top