On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 13:41 -0800, Jason Ekstrand 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. > --Jason > I think it makes sense to have a publicly accessible archive repo for nuked feature branches otherwise potentially useful code could just be lost.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
