couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: branch names
Date Tue, 04 Dec 2012 18:37:13 GMT
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dave Cottlehuber <dch@jsonified.com> wrote:

> On 4 December 2012 19:08, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On 4 December 2012 17:55, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> just a heads up, the scheme for branch names we agreed on
> >> is: 1532-feature-add-docs No underscores. Please follow
> >> this.
> >>
> >> The fact that the cors branch doesn’t follow this is a
> >> historic artefact that I thought wasn’t worth cleaning
> >> up, but it looks I was wrong.
>
> We have 3 branches that are out of kilter, I've fixed them up now,
> 431, 1346, 1536 respectively.
>
> That leaves:
>
> new-security-object - which I can't see in master - any idea what this
> relates to @davisp?
>

It was work on giving _security objects a revision tree. Quite complicated
and exists on my GitHub fork. Feel free to delete it.


> test-for-unexported-functions - @jan ?
> docs - which I will clean up once we are OK on the docs merge.
>
> Finally, I've a suggestion - to keep the working list of branches
> short, but still have the actual commits available if needed, we could
> tag branches like docs or cors that have had significant intermediary
> work. The tags ensure that despite the branch being removed, the
> commits will not be garbage collected. Or just get rid of the branches
> completely if others think that's better.
>
> A+
> Dave
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message