Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. From: Michal Mocny Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 3:13 PM To: dev Reply To: dev@cordova.apache.org Subject: Re: CLI's master2
Hmmm. What about Carlos' suggestion to just tag master2 instead of renaming branch? It would mean we can't land changes, which I like. -Michal On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > 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> > >> > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
