Deleting some abandon branches might be a good cleanup exercise, and make it clear to use 'master'
- master2 - future - lazy - merges - bb10RemovePrompt - future-bb10 - dependencies On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > Thanks Andrew! > > Ian, will do. > > On 7/5/13 8:14 AM, "Ian Clelland" <iclell...@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 <agri...@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 <mmo...@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 <mmo...@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 <iclell...@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 <f...@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" <agri...@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 <csantan...@gmail.com>
