On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:41 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. > I'm OK with deleting old branches too. I don't know much about git under the hood- would deleting old branches actually delete the objects on those branches and make the database smaller? If so, I'm guessing it probably wouldn't amount to much. -Brian
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
