I like this "attic" idea better, resurrecting something is easier if you can find that it ever existed (w/o diving into svn history, à la "svn delete").
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Stefan Eissing <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Greg. The proposed change is purely aestetic. You could make a > dir /branches/attic" and move all candidates there. People wanting to > "resurrect" them can simply move them back. This is not RCS. > >> Am 25.10.2017 um 20:21 schrieb Greg Stein <[email protected]>: >> >> To be clear: "delete" simply means "no longer seen in HEAD". This is version >> control. The data cannot truly be deleted, so it can always be revived. Or >> reviewed. >> >> On Oct 25, 2017 12:31, "Marion & Christophe JAILLET" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> Just to mention that before giving a +1, I made a copy of these repositories >> in order to dig later on, in order to see if something useful seems to be >> there. >> Don't have that much time these days to play with httpd, but will do and >> will report anything that looks valuable. >> >> CJ >> >> >> Le 25/10/2017 à 14:29, Jim Jagielski a écrit : >> Are there anything of "value" in any of those branches? >> >> If not, prune away! >> >> On Oct 24, 2017, at 9:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Steffen <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:26, Steffen wrote: >> >> Can someone clean up the not needed anymore backports/branches >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/ >> >> httpd 2.4.1 was tagged at r1243503. >> >> I'd propose we start by pruning all working branches not updated since this >> tag. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >
