Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of fil@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.208 as permitted sender)
From: Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
To: "dev@cordova.apache.org" <dev@cordova.apache.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:48:13 -0700
Subject: Re: CLI's master2
Thread-Topic: CLI's master2
Thread-Index: Ac58zH3ngF5jWxXMR2SxxVZm/RxzAQ==
Message-ID: <CE019ADB.220EC%fil@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHYtTq=Tgin1_41Q8WdGze=9Ucqoo0C75wRh5SQW8d6iLLMAFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

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>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>--=20
>Carlos Santana
><csantana23@gmail.com>