|Re: [mdt-ocl.dev] 'archive' branches|
Hi Axel Looking at https://github.com/eclipse/ocl/network for ~11-Jun shows that archive/348504 is just a 'tag' and so might as well be deletedarchive/348502 successfully archives a branch development history, which I had concluded was not possible. The corresponding EGIT history looks messier, but perhaps merge is good after all.
Can you explain what you did that makes the history for 348502 better, and that for 348504 worse (there is a kink on EGIT) than I have been achieving by cherrypicking/rebasing?
349157. See Bugzilla. Regards Ed On 29/08/2011 22:03, Axel Uhl wrote:
Hi,what about 349157? The bug is still open, but Ed seemed to have a plan how to fix this that exceeded what I had in mind doing. Shall I close / delete the branch?I've "archived": - 348502 - 348504344368 and 349117 I consider important work in progress. I just currently lack the time to continue on them and hope to be able to pick them up early October again.Best, -- Axel On 08/29/2011 10:36 AM, Ed Willink wrote:Hi I've eliminated all the (my) archive branches and pruned my obsolete bugbranches. It looks as if there are a couple that Axel could prune and a few more that Adolfo could prune. In EGIT, just delete all remote tracking archive/bug branches and then fetch from upstream to get a cleaned up display. I'm finding that neither rebase nor merge works very satisfactorily whenthere is a conflict, and I find the pop-up dialog and OURS/THEIRS bracketing unfathomable when both are MINE, particularly when changes seem to be whitespace related. I find a manual cherry pick iteration a much better way to rewrite an out-of-date branch onto local master. Oncecomplete the out-of-date branch can be reset hard to local master, whichcan then be reset hard back to upstream master. Regards Ed On 26/08/2011 16:54, Adolfo Sánchez-Barbudo Herrera wrote:Ed, +1. Let's see if the SR1 RC2 is smoothly done the next week, so that I might spend some time sorting out the bugs and branches I have in hands.... I think that some of them are solved and they could probably be removed. Regards, Adolfo. El 26/08/2011 9:58, Ed Willink escribió:Hi 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. Regards Ed_______________________________________________ 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: 1520/3865 - Release Date: 08/29/11
Back to the top