Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[] 'archive' branches


I think that we felt that archive branches might be useful for retaining the history of a particular branch.

This does not appear to be the case. Once the successful branch is rebased onto master, all the relevant history is 'merged', so there is no particular use for the archive branch which is just an end-of-activity marker. The true history is identifiable from the [xxxxxx] commit comment prefixes and the compressed time recap at the rebase transaction. If a real marker for the end-of-activity is required then a tag is of course possible.

It seems that the only 'bug' branches worth keeping are those that have not been exploited, so I propose that

bug/xxxxxx is a work in progress that will probably be exploited
archive/xxxxxx is a work abandoned, that might be revivable later

There should be very few archive/xxxxxx, and only a few bug/xxxxxx.



Back to the top