develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2020

Re: The great dead-branch prune part 1

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
demerphq
Date:
February 10, 2020 01:41
Subject:
Re: The great dead-branch prune part 1
Message ID:
CANgJU+W4QKVLhy5A+tcSdPOvvQzd5OvzfUeHjKz5ZJWeX==7Aw@mail.gmail.com
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020, 03:02 Karl Williamson, <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:

> On 2/9/20 10:22 AM, demerphq wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:52, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com
> > <mailto:demerphq@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry.  Those branches of mine were deletable.  But they are both
> works-in-progress, with more commits that I have made locally but it
> turns out not yet pushed to smoke.
>

So one could argue deleting them is helpful in the sense that it alerts the
author that was is upstream doesnt match what they have locally.

But of course so could a report. :-)


> I think that if this is going to be done again, that branches that have
> been worked on in say, the last 3 or 6 months, should be excluded from
> review.
>

How about we introduce a convention that IFF a branch has "wip" (case
insensensitive) we apply that rule? More on this below.


> And do we really need to keep around stuff that hasn't been touched in a
> decade?
>

Good question. I was going to add breakdowns by date to my report tool so
we have some structured data to have that conversation. I think also
testing whether the branch is rebasable is also a good test. If it produces
massive conflicts and it's fairly old it's a strong signal that the branch
probably should be deleted. Maybe anything that old is going to conflict so
much that it won't help.

Cheers
Yves

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About