On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: > On Feb 20, 2016 1:19 PM, "Rob Clark" <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> fwiw, I think a *small* number of topic branches in certain cases >> makes sense.. I'm definitely in support of a TTL limit (ie. >> automatically nuke topic branches with no activity in N months, or >> similar..) > > I agree. Sometimes something big comes up that's not ready for merging such > as amdgpu or our recently pushed Vulkan driver. However, those should only > be temporary and removed once the work is complete. I saw a "broadwell" > branch in there which is probably at least 2 years old and completely > subsumed by master. We don't want to be archiving random junk in the main > tree. > > I'd be fine with a timeout system where non-release branches get the boot > after a certain amount inactivity. If you want to archive something, that's > what personal git repos are for.
fwiw, I would totally ack a plan to automatically delete inactive topic branches after N months of inactivity (where I'd be fine with N==2 or even as high as N==12 but I think you'd have a hard time convincing me for N>12) Bonus points if someone wanted to archive old branches somewhere.. but I don't care strongly about that.. BR, -R _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
