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

[Kenneth Graunke]

On Monday, February 22, 2016 12:20:02 PM PST Jose Fonseca wrote:
> On 22/02/16 02:59, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > Brian Paul <brian.e.paul at gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 20, 2016 1:19 PM, "Rob Clark" <robdclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> fwiw, I think a *small* number of topic branches in certain cases
> >>>> makes sense..  I'm definitely in support of a TTL limit (ie.
> >>>> automatically nuke topic branches with no activity in N months, or
> >>>> similar..)
> >>>
> >>> I agree. Sometimes something big comes up that's not ready for merging
> >>> such as amdgpu or our recently pushed Vulkan driver.  However, those 
should
> >>> only be temporary and removed once the work is complete.  I saw a
> >>> "broadwell" branch in there which is probably at least 2 years old and
> >>> completely subsumed by master.  We don't want to be archiving random 
junk
> >>> in the main tree.
> >>>
> >>> I'd be fine with a timeout system where non-release branches get the 
boot
> >>> after a certain amount inactivity. If you want to archive something, 
that's
> >>> what personal git repos are for.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm OK with deleting old branches too.
> >>
> >> I don't know much about git under the hood- would deleting old branches
> >> actually delete the objects on those branches and make the database
> >> smaller?  If so, I'm guessing it probably wouldn't amount to much.
> >
> > People pulling down the repository fresh wouldn't get any objects that
> > existed only in the old branches.  For those of us with existing clones,
> > the tracking branch would stay around until we do a git prune, and then
> > the objects would stay around until git gc.
> >
> > There's an argument for keeping branches that aren't merged, in case
> > someone wants to pick the work back up again.  But then, almost all
> > branches of that type are in personal repositories, anyway.
> 
> I don't disagree, but one problem of using personal repos for 
> development history is that personal directories on fdo.org aren't being 
> backed up.

I thought that changed after the great data loss of 2009, and things are
actually backed up now.  I'd have to ask in #freedesktop to confirm
though...

--Ken
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20160222/fc44eaf9/attachment.sig>