I agree that this topic captures the ideas taken from the prior conversation and vote that it be added to prod.
--Trevor -----Original Message----- From: Franklin, Matthew B. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 3:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Removing Bootstrap Branch Based on feedback from this topic I have created a branch management page [1] on the staging website. This is not live in prod and is not linked anywhere. Assuming lazy consensus, I will publish the page on Wednesday morning. On a related note, I will delete the bootstrap branch at the same time, unless anyone has further reservations. [1] : http://rave.staging.apache.org/docs/practices/branching.html >-----Original Message----- >From: Chris Geer [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:39 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Removing Bootstrap Branch > >I could go either way on this as well but thing problem the delete does >solve is making sure it's clear what branches are no longer valid/active. >If we keep the branch, is there a way to annotate it so that people will >know quickly that it is inactive/done? > >Chris > >On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Franklin, Matthew B. ><[email protected]>wrote: > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Ate Douma [mailto:[email protected]] >> >Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:10 AM >> >To: [email protected] >> >Subject: Re: Removing Bootstrap Branch >> > >> >On 05/15/2012 02:31 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote: >> >> Now that the bootstrap branch has been integrated into trunk, it needs >> to >> >be deleted. Assuming lazy consensus, I will delete the branch today or >> >tomorrow. >> > >> >Although I don't really have an objection to delete that branch, why >> would it >> >'need' to be deleted? >> > >> >Commonly branches are simply left as they are, retaining east access to >> their >> >history for who might need to review it still sometime later. >> >In this case that might not be so much of a need for, so I'm personally >> fine >> >with deleting this branch (or not). But for the more generic case I think >> it >> >might be better not making that a default/expected process. >> >> In the case where the branch was created for the purpose of working a >> large new feature in that would have left trunk in an inconsistent state, I >> think deletion once completed is appropriate. In this case, the branch has >> no functional use once the feature is reintegrated. >> >> SVN will keep all the history in prior revisions, so we won't lose any >> information; but, it won't be visible when browsing the HEAD. >> >> For other branch cases, I could see leaving it open. In the end, it isn't >> a big deal either way, unless we get a large number of branches. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> > >> >Ate >> > >> >> >> >> -Matt >> >>
