"Oh Git. I love thee. An OCD persons dream." - Datahowler https://twitter.com/datahowler/status/296034084784857091
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi, > > If someone wants to do something then (s)he had to branch from master > branch. I think this is very intuitive for Git users, no ? :-) > > From the list returned from 'git branch -a' I think the ones with 'build' > in their name/path can be deleted. For all of them we have tags, for the > respective releases. > There are some experimental branches (e.g. with 'sandbox' in their name and > others) - those should stay there. Someone may revive them some day. > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Martin Funk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > something I stumble over form time to time is the sheer number of > branches > > that the git repo is carrying. > > Is there a reasoning behind that, which I haven't picked up? > > > > It is not a big thing just a litte itch every time I try to encourage > > someone to get closer to wickets codebase. > > After we do the fork and clone dance over at github we get to the local > > > > > git branch -a > > > > popping up with about 110 branches. > > > > It always has to be said: "Forget about 95% of those branches, they > > haven't been used for years." > > > > So my wish would be to transform those branches to tags. Would that be > > possible? > > > > I understand that that might be a tedious and boring task, but thats what > > housekeeping is all the time :-) > > > > Martin >
