Hi,
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Ben Elliston wrote:
I deleted a personal branch from 5 years ago and have added the revision
number of the delete commit to the branch description in svn.html.
Would these two conventions suffice?
Well, I'm always of the opinion that it's better to have some
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 08:33 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
So, why not just move them to dead-branches now, and be done with it?
OK, your argument has convinced me. :-)
Cheers,
Ben
On 10/12/2009 09:05 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
I don't think we should necessarily limit ourself by bugs in foreign tools
if it reduces useful information. What about a new top-level directory
dead-branches/, not under branches/ but parallel to it? Should be easy to
exempt from git-svn handling,
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 03:05 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
I don't think we should necessarily limit ourself by bugs in foreign tools
if it reduces useful information. What about a new top-level directory
dead-branches/, not under branches/ but parallel to it? Should be easy to
exempt from
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/12/2009 05:17 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
That seems like a huge bug in git-svn because we already use multiple
directory levels under branches. Hint ibm and redhat and debain.
Yep, that's why I said expand. I've
On 10/13/2009 08:50 PM, Ben Elliston wrote:
I found that svn log works well if you do this:
svn log svn+ssh://b...@gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc | less
Which in recent versions of svn can also be written
svn log ^/ |less
if you're in an SVN working directory.
Jason
On 09/25/2009 09:35 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Viewing deleted files and their history (and for SVN deleted branches are
just a special case of deleted files) is something SVN is bad at since you
do need to work out the last revision the file was present first.
Yep. Anyone deleting dead
On 10/12/2009 10:22 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Yep. Anyone deleting dead branches should add a link to the last live
version in branches.html. It seems easier to me to move them under
branches/dead, and possibly create branches/merged.
Multiple directory levels under branches/ confuse git-svn;
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/12/2009 10:22 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Yep. Anyone deleting dead branches should add a link to the last live
version in branches.html. It seems easier to me to move them under
branches/dead, and possibly create
On 10/12/2009 05:17 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
That seems like a huge bug in git-svn because we already use multiple
directory levels under branches. Hint ibm and redhat and debain.
Yep, that's why I said expand. I've thought about fixing that aspect
of git-svn, but I'm not sure how it would
Hi,
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/12/2009 10:22 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Yep. Anyone deleting dead branches should add a link to the last live
version in branches.html. It seems easier to me to move them under
branches/dead, and possibly create branches/merged.
On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 16:55 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Do we believe any future conversion to another version control system
(that might have a more structured notion of what is a branch than it
simply being a directory used in a certain way) would continue to make the
history of such
Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com writes:
The SVN book
(http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.branchmerge.basicmerging.html)
suggests deleting feature branches that have been merged into the
trunk; I think this would help to reduce the clutter in the branches
directory and avoid confusion
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009, Jason Merrill wrote:
The SVN book
(http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.branchmerge.basicmerging.html)
suggests deleting feature branches that have been merged into the trunk; I
think this would help to reduce the clutter in the branches directory and
avoid
On 09/25/2009 12:55 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Do we believe any future conversion to another version control system
(that might have a more structured notion of what is a branch than it
simply being a directory used in a certain way) would continue to make the
history of such branches readily
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
other than having been merged into trunk (for example, it may have been
replaced by another branch without all changes being merged into trunk).
My inclination would be to delete branches like that as well.
that sounds a
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis dosr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
other than having been merged into trunk (for example, it may have been
replaced by another branch without all changes being merged into trunk).
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis dosr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
other than having been merged into trunk (for example, it may have been
replaced by another
Quoting Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com:
Viewing deleted files and their history (and for SVN deleted branches are
just a special case of deleted files) is something SVN is bad at since you
do need to work out the last revision the file was present first. I hope
that any version control
19 matches
Mail list logo
