Good idea. Let's comment on which ones can be removed.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Carlos Santana <csantan...@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 <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> >
