Hi,
I wouldn't delete, as in completely remove, anything. Just transform the
branches, that haven't been developed on, to a tag. So nothing is lost. And if
needed branches can be recreated of those tags.
Just keep the branches, that the developing community wants to encourage
development on.
taking
#!/bin/sh
#
for k in `git branch -r | awk '{print $1}'`; do
echo `git log -1 --pretty=format:"%ci %cr" "$k"`\\t"$k";
done | sort
gives a nice list of the branches sorted by their latest commit.
So if it were up to me I'd transform any branch older than the wicket-1.5.x
branch to a tag.
That would leave:
2013-09-14 00:31:18 -0400 6 weeks ago apache/wicket-1.5.x
2013-09-20 12:02:32 +0200 5 weeks ago apache/build/wicket-6.11.0
2013-10-01 16:58:19 +0200 4 weeks ago
apache/WICKET-5297-ajax-repaint-with-animation
2013-10-25 20:33:02 +0200 21 hours ago apache/master
2013-10-25 20:36:11 +0200 21 hours ago apache/wicket-6.x
were the build/wicket-6.11.0 and WICKET-5297-ajax-repaint-with-animation might
be candidates for transformation to a tag.
Martin
Am 25.10.2013 um 12:50 schrieb Martin Grigorov <[email protected]>:
> 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
