Future, bb10removeprompt and futurebb10 can all be removed On 7/9/13 11:42 AM, "Andrew Grieve" <agri...@chromium.org> wrote:
>Fil - any guidance on the other branches Carlos listed out? > > >On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> Agree with Andrew, rename the branch to pre-3.0-history >> >> On 7/9/13 10:45 AM, "Carlos Santana" <csantan...@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 <agri...@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 <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> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >-- >> >Carlos Santana >> ><csantan...@gmail.com> >> >>
