removing old branches

2006-05-12 Thread Archaic
Matt, any objection to removing these obsolete branches from trunk? LFS-RNG alphabetical cross-lfs multi-arch udev_update The following tags are also still in there: 6.1 6.1-pre1 6.1-pre2 6.1-testrelease 6.1.1 6.1.1-pre1 6.1.1-pre2 6.1.1-rc1 lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2 v5_1 The XML for a

Re: removing old branches

2006-05-12 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Archaic wrote: > Matt, any objection to removing these obsolete branches from trunk? > > LFS-RNG alphabetical cross-lfs multi-arch udev_update > > > The following tags are also still in there: > > 6.1 6.1-pre1 6.1-pre2 6.1-testrelease 6.1.1 6.1.1-pre1 6.1.1-pre2 > 6.1.1-rc1 lfs-boots

Re: removing old branches

2006-05-12 Thread Jeremy Huntwork
Bruce Dubbs wrote: Archaic wrote: Matt, any objection to removing these obsolete branches from trunk? LFS-RNG alphabetical cross-lfs multi-arch udev_update Seems to me that the only one that needs to stay (maybe) is LFS-RNG. The rest have either been merged or abandoned. -- JH -- http:

Re: removing old branches

2006-05-12 Thread Archaic
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 06:07:03PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > I wouldn't remove anything. It is a historical record. Also, tags take > up almost no room. They are really just a set of pointers. Bruce, this is SVN. There is no purging. And yes, this does take up room (and time) when you have

Re: removing old branches

2006-05-12 Thread Archaic
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 07:08:59PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > Seems to me that the only one that needs to stay (maybe) is LFS-RNG. The > rest have either been merged or abandoned. Yeah, that's why I CC'd Matt. It may be that the RNG branch is so far out of date now that it isn't worth try

Re: removing old branches

2006-05-12 Thread M.Canales.es
El Sábado, 13 de Mayo de 2006 01:08, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > Seems to me that the only one that needs to stay (maybe) is LFS-RNG. The > rest have either been merged or abandoned. Cab be removed. It is very out-of-date and the move-on to DocBook-5.0 depend on upstream developing XSL-2.0 bas

Re: removing old branches

2006-05-12 Thread Matthew Burgess
> On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 06:07:03PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> >> I wouldn't remove anything. It is a historical record. Also, tags take >> up almost no room. They are really just a set of pointers. > > Bruce, this is SVN. There is no purging. And yes, this does take up room > (and time) when

Re: removing old branches

2006-05-12 Thread Matthew Burgess
> El Sábado, 13 de Mayo de 2006 01:08, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > >> Seems to me that the only one that needs to stay (maybe) is LFS-RNG. The >> rest have either been merged or abandoned. > > Cab be removed. Agreed. Let's just ditch it. It's going nowhere fast. Regards, Matt. -- http://linu

Re: removing old branches

2006-05-12 Thread Archaic
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 05:17:32PM -0600, Matthew Burgess wrote: > > "Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I do x." "Well, don't do x then!". Why in > the world would you want to pull all the tags and branches at the same > time into the same working copy? That just sounds completely unmanageable > to

Re: removing old branches

2006-05-12 Thread Archaic
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 05:18:48PM -0600, Matthew Burgess wrote: > > Agreed. Let's just ditch it. It's going nowhere fast. And the others (save the latest stable release)? -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linu