[Mesa-dev] abundance of branches in mesa.git

[Tom Stellard]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:23:54PM +0200, Marek Olšák wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:36 AM, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote:
> >> On 22.06.2015 00:31, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 20/06/15 10:01, Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen wrote:
> >>>>> Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are a *ton* of branches in the upstream mesa git. Here is a full list:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>>> is there
> >>>>>> any reason to keep these around with the exception of:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> master
> >>>>>> $version (i.e. 9.0, 10.0, mesa_7_7_branch, etc)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Instead of outright deleting old branches, it would be possible to set
> >>>>> up an "archive" repository which mirrors all branches of the main
> >>>>> repository. And then delete "obsolete" branches only from the main
> >>>>> repository. Ideally, you would want a git hook to refuse to create a new
> >>>>> branch (in the main repository) if a branch by that name already exists
> >>>>> in the archive repository. Possibly with the exception that creating a
> >>>>> same-named branch on the same commit would be allowed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (And the same for tags, of course)
> >>>>>
> >>>> Personally I am fine with either approach - stay/nuke/move. But I'm
> >>>> thinking that having a mix of the two suggestions might be a nice middle
> >>>> ground.
> >>>>
> >>>> Write a script that nukes branches that are merged in master (check the
> >>>> top commit of the branch) and have an 'archive' repo that contains
> >>>> everything else (minus the stable branches).
> >>
> >> Sounds good to me, FWIW.
> >>
> >>
> >>> That still leaves a ton around, and curiously removes mesa_7_5 and mesa_7_6.
> >>
> >> I think the latter is expected, we were using a different branching
> >> model back in those days.
> >>
> >>
> >>>    origin/amdgpu
> >>
> >> Note that this is a currently active branch, to be merged to master soon.
> >
> > Perhaps there's something I don't understand, but why is a feature
> > branch made available on the shared tree? In my view of things the
> > only branches on the shared mesa.git tree should be the version
> > branches.
> 
> As you can see, a lot of feature branches are in the shared tree
> already, so there is a precedent. Sharing a branch among people in
> this way sometimes tends to be more convenient.
> 
> The reason here is that it's the only mesa repository where most
> people from our team have commit access.
> 

Also, the shared git tree supports https access, which means it is
accessible when behind a firewall.

-Tom

> Marek
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev