cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Filip Maj <...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: CLI's master2
Date Tue, 09 Jul 2013 19:04:32 GMT
Future, bb10removeprompt and futurebb10 can all be removed

On 7/9/13 11:42 AM, "Andrew Grieve" <agrieve@chromium.org> wrote:

>Fil - any guidance on the other branches Carlos listed out?
>
>
>On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Agree with Andrew, rename the branch to pre-3.0-history
>>
>> On 7/9/13 10:45 AM, "Carlos Santana" <csantana23@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I propose to kill master 2 branch, and instead use a tag
>>"pre-3.0-history"
>> >
>> >
>> >On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Good idea. Let's comment on which ones can be removed.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Carlos Santana <csantana23@gmail.com
>> >> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Deleting some abandon branches might be a good cleanup exercise,
>>and
>> >>make
>> >> > it clear to use 'master'
>> >> >
>> >> > - master2
>> >> >
>> >> This we should keep around since it has a sane history. Let's rename
>>it
>> >> though. Maybe to "pre-3.0-history"
>> >>
>> >> > - future
>> >> >
>> >> This can be removed.
>> >>
>> >> > - lazy
>> >> > - merges
>> >> > - bb10RemovePrompt
>> >> > - future-bb10
>> >> > - dependencies
>> >> >
>> >> This was merged and can be removed.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Thanks Andrew!
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Ian, will do.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On 7/5/13 8:14 AM, "Ian Clelland" <iclelland@google.com>
wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >Doh. I *just* submitted a pull req against master2.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >Fil -- let me know if you have any problems with it, and I'll
>> >>resubmit
>> >> > as
>> >> > > >necessary.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Grieve
>> >><agrieve@chromium.org>
>> >> > > >wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> Okay, I made master look like master2, but the commit
log is
>> >> > essentially
>> >> > > >> lost. Have not removed master2.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>         git rm -r .
>> >> > > >>         git checkout --theirs master2 -- .
>> >> > > >>         git commit -a
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Maybe lets now go back to committing to master, and keep
>>master2
>> >> > around
>> >> > > >>for
>> >> > > >> history's sake?
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Michal Mocny
>> >><mmocny@chromium.org>
>> >> > > >>wrote:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > (small correction, next was actually called future).
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Also, I don't see any work being done on master.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Michal Mocny
>> >><mmocny@chromium.org
>> >> >
>> >> > > >> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > > If master is in use, then I think that is a
mistake.
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > As far as I'm aware, master branch should be
"dead" right?
>> >>We
>> >> > had a
>> >> > > >> > > 'next' branch that was for 3.0 work which diverged
from
>> >>master
>> >> and
>> >> > > >>the
>> >> > > >> > > merge back was not clean (for various reasons),
hence we
>> >> > > >>"temporarily"
>> >> > > >> > went
>> >> > > >> > > with a master2 until we could just "overwrite"
master.
>>Since
>> >> that
>> >> > > >> seems
>> >> > > >> > to
>> >> > > >> > > not be possible, Andrew is suggesting we go
ahead with the
>> >>not
>> >> > clean
>> >> > > >> > merge
>> >> > > >> > > (history may look awkward), but do away with
this
>>ridiculous
>> >> > > >>situation.
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > Did I summarize that right?
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Brian LeRoux
<b@brian.io>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> So, what is the difference between master
and master2?
>>Right
>> >> now,
>> >> > > >> > >> master from what I understand is in heavy
use w/ tonnes
>>of
>> >>bugs
>> >> > and
>> >> > > >> > >> fixes.
>> >> > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Ian Clelland
<
>> >> > iclelland@google.com
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >> > We've had that ticket open for some
time now, and
>>Braden
>> >>has
>> >> > > >>tried
>> >> > > >> on
>> >> > > >> > a
>> >> > > >> > >> > couple of occasions to get some movement
on it, but
>> >>there's
>> >> > been
>> >> > > >>no
>> >> > > >> > >> action
>> >> > > >> > >> > so far.
>> >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Filip
Maj
>><fil@adobe.com
>> >
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> >> If you want to give it a shot,
go for it!
>> >> > > >> > >> >>
>> >> > > >> > >> >> Didn't we have an INFRA issue
filed for them to move
>>the
>> >> > master
>> >> > > >> HEAD
>> >> > > >> > >> >> pointer to master2 and fix this
for us? :P
>> >> > > >> > >> >>
>> >> > > >> > >> >> On 7/4/13 9:23 AM, "Andrew Grieve"
>><agrieve@chromium.org
>> >
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >> >>
>> >> > > >> > >> >> >I feel that having master2
around is now causing us
>>more
>> >> harm
>> >> > > >>than
>> >> > > >> > >> would
>> >> > > >> > >> >> >be
>> >> > > >> > >> >> >done if we just merged it
into master. I'd like to
>> >>merge it
>> >> > > >>into
>> >> > > >> > >> master,
>> >> > > >> > >> >> >delete master2, and move on.
>> >> > > >> > >> >>
>> >> > > >> > >> >>
>> >> > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Carlos Santana
>> >> > <csantana23@gmail.com>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Carlos Santana
>> ><csantana23@gmail.com>
>>
>>


Mime
View raw message