On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 01:51:49AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-04-22 12:27:06 -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > and they even show up in 'hg branches': > > No, according to "hg help glossary": > > Head, closed branch > A changeset that marks a head as no longer interesting. The > closed head is no longer listed by 'hg heads'. A branch is > considered closed when all its heads are closed and > consequently is not listed by 'hg branches'. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > you can see the old closed 'stable' branch still in our repos.
Thanks, Vincent, I was thinking about the old "head" branch, and somehow got confused. You're right of course! > I think that all the branches except "default" and "stable" should > be closed with "hg commit --close-branch". The "stable" branch is > inactive just because the "default" branch is a descendent of it > (if I understand correctly). But it may get commits in the future > (e.g. security fixes), which will make it no longer inactive. I think that's fine. David, Brendan, do you have any opposition to closing out the old branches? > > Bookmarks may be an idea. Looking at the wiki page, it says bookmarks > > can be removed, but the commits still stay. > > Yes, commits should stay. That's the goal of a VCS. But AFAIK, they > will not be in the way. So, as long as there are no major copyright > issues, I would see this as a feature. Okay I'll give it some thought then. -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA http://www.8t8.us/configs/gpg-key-transition-statement.txt
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
