On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.. > Chad has some nifty way of archiving branches where they still exist and have names but are hidden. I don't remember how it works though.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
