Re: stale git branches

[Urs Liska]

Am 11. April 2020 15:33:06 MESZ schrieb David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>Jonas Hahnfeld <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> following removal of dev/translation-* branches, I took a closer look
>> at stale branches. I think it would make sense to keep unscoped
>> branches (outside of dev/user/) to a minimum. This should also avoid
>> overlooking old changes that have not been merged yet.
>> The following list is by no means complete, but maybe a good start:
>>
>> dev/pango contains commits:
>> 53ed2b55e2 Add a RAII wrapper for extracting FT_Face from PangoFcFont
>> c93c477180 Make Pango >= 1.36 mandatory.
>> in master:
>> 9cf8d35e8c Add a RAII wrapper for extracting FT_Face from PangoFcFont
>> 15b7118410 Make Pango >= 1.36 mandatory.
>> I'm fairly certain the branch can be removed.
>
>git rebase origin origin/dev/pango
>
>ends up with no commit on top.  So yes.
>
>> Branches dev/issue3300,
>
>Mine, but actually issue 3330.  Removed.
>
>> dev/issue3330, dev/issue3648 are likely related
>> to the named issues which have status 'Verified'. AFAICS there are
>some
>> additional commits in the branches, could be due to review comments?
>> David, you are probably the best to judge if they are fully merged or
>> some changes could still be relevant, could you take a look?
>>
>> As far as I understand, master now also has the relevant commits from
>> dev/guile-v2-work, dev/guilev2, and dev/guilev21? Can those branches
>be
>> dropped to avoid possible confusion about the current status?
>
>Will followup on all those later.
>
>> Then there are some dev/user/ branches. I consider these relatively
>> "private" to that person and would not propose to delete them on a
>> global basis. Still maybe everyone can take a look and delete unused
>> personal branches on their own?
>
>origin/dev/rune may be considered an epitaph.  I don't think anybody
>ever attempted merging what this was about: maybe it's in the interest
>area of Hans Aberg.  Whether or not somebody does an assessment of it
>at
>one point of time, I think it appropriate to leave it as-is, including
>not rebasing/rewriting any of it in-place.
>
>I'll readily agree that there is a disconcerting large set of other
>apparently semi-dead branches by living people, most of them likely
>unaware of what they left lying there.  There may be some point in
>going
>through and mailing them about what they think best to do here.

I will look into what I have lying around.

Urs

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.