hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Delete old branches
Date Thu, 21 May 2020 01:41:18 GMT
I like the idea of an old/ or eom/ prefix for old release lines.

I'm also fine with deleting old release lines.

For feature branches I think case by case unless the feature has merged.
Maybe a discuss for more complicated feature branches that are unlikely to
merge (0.89-fb hydrabase, etc). We can always tag these or put them in the
"this isn't being looked at" prefix mentioned above.

On Wed, May 20, 2020, 20:23 Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> What we do at $dayjob is rename old branches old/*.
> So we could rename EOL branches this way? E.g.
>
> for branch in branch-2.1 ... ; do
>     git checkout $branch &&
>     git branch -m old/$branch &&
>     git push $origin old/$branch :$branch
> done
>
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:21 PM Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Why remove old/unused branches? To keep our garden tidy. They’re
> > distracting at best, confusing at worst. For old release line branches,
> > it’s not clear to a casual committer which branches need to receive a
> back
> > port. It’s clear if the EOL branches are gone.
> >
> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 18:06 Guanghao Zhang <zghaobac@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for remove feature branches and start a  case-by-case discussion for
> > > "others".
> > >
> > > And for branchs of old release line, what's the harm if keep them? I
> > > thought we don't need to remove them.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino219@gmail.com> 于2020年5月21日周四 上午8:14写道:
> > >
> > > > What is the benefit?
> > > >
> > > > Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@apache.org>于2020年5月21日 周四07:31写道:
> > > >
> > > > > Heya,
> > > > >
> > > > > We have lots of branches hanging around in git. These appear to be
> > > > > 1. branches for old release lines (i.e., 0.90),
> > > > > 2. feature branches (that are potentially stale, i.e.,
> HBASE-11288),
> > > > > 3. "other" (i.e., 0.89-fb, former_0.20, revert-1633-HBASE-24221).
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we decide it's okay to delete some of these?
> > > > >
> > > > > For (1), all of our release tags, going back to 0.1, are preserved.
> > > > There's
> > > > > no benefit to keeping these.
> > > > >
> > > > > For (2), I think there's no discussion required, just someone to
go
> > > check
> > > > > each Jira ID, and delete any that are closed, maybe with a comment
> on
> > > the
> > > > > Jira first. Maybe this could be automated?
> > > > >
> > > > > For (3), I suppose we need a case-by-case discussion? Maybe there
> are
> > > > > categories of these that can be resolved in blocks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Nick
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrew
>
> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> decrepit hands
>    - A23, Crosstalk
>

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