On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Martin Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>
I do encourage you to work on WICKET-5297-ajax-repaint-with-animation !
So I think it is OK to keep it a branch.
>
> 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
>
>
