Re: [cdt-dev] Deleting obsolete branches

[Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxx>]

FWIW, I've updated the descriptions on git.eclipse.org/c to provide more useful info.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
  Original Message
From: Alex Blewitt
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 4:46 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Reply To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Deleting obsolete branches


So there’s no reason you can’t preserve the great content but as part of the CDT repo in a different branch or set of branches. That way you can still refer to it or feed ideas down the road, but it looks like an old branch in an updated repository as opposed to an abandoned repository.

The point is that people on this list know to look at cdt.git but it’s not obvious necessarily to those who are just trying to find out some reference to source code.

Alex

On 28 Jul 2014, at 20:20, Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Not sure why its such a big deal. Everyone by now knows to just go to the cdt.git one and you're fine. The others have valuable code that I don't want to get rid of.
>
> EDC is the debugger that the Nokia team was working on based on (not necessarily compliant with) TCF. It has a Windows debugger in it which we may try to bring back to life.
>
> The old repo are plug-ins that got started but for whatever reason never reached maturity. There is some great stuff in there as well that may feed ideas down the road.
>
> I don't know what the 150113 repo is or who created it. It's not a bug number. It could be an ugly Americanized date from Jan 15, 2013, or a repo from the future Jan 13, 2015. I keep hoping whoever created would step up and tell us what to do with it. I'm pretty sure I didn't do it. Either way, I'll delete it in a day or so if I don't hear from anyone.
>
> Doug.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Marc Khouzam [marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:59 PM
> To: 'CDT General developers list.'
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Deleting obsolete branches
>
> So, what are these repos, actually?
>
> org.eclipse.cdt.edc.git         - EDC Repo.  Need to keep on its own as it is quite big (IIRC)
> org.eclipse.cdt.git             - Golden CDT repo.  Don't touch :)
> org.eclipse.cdt.git.150113      - What is this?
> org.eclipse.cdt.master.git      - Original repo combining CDT with EDC.  It only has a history
>                                   of 36 commits and currently 3 files.  Maybe this can be made
>                                   a directory under org.eclipse.cdt.git/releng?
> org.eclipse.cdt.old.git         - What is this?
>
>
>
> --------
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alex Blewitt
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 10:47 AM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Deleting obsolete branches
>
> The danger of having old repositories lying around is that someone looks at them and thinks that they are the current ones, or that the project is no longer active.
>
> If the majority of the content in those repositories is already in the main one then pushing the content as a branch to that main repository will probate not take up significant extra space and still allows you to get hold of the builds subsequently.
>
> The E4 project suffers from such old bloat with people getting attached to repositories (instead of tags/branches) with the result that you never know which E4 repository is the real one, and which are ghosts from the past.
>
> Alex
>
> Sent from my iPhone 5
>
> On 28 Jul 2014, at 15:17, Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Old may be that, but I don't want to lose that anyway. There's some interesting stuff in there.
>
> And master was our old master build that combined the cdt and edc for the build. If anyone wants to reproduce those builds, they'll need that repo.
>
> Doug.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> From: Aleksandar Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon Jul 28 2014 10:08:18 GMT-0400 (EDT)
> To: Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxx>
> CC: CDT General developers list. <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Deleting obsolete branches
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Doug Schaefer" <dschaefer@xxxxxxx>
>> To: "Aleksandar Kurtakov" <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx>, "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 5:01:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Deleting obsolete branches
>>
>> What's a dead git repo? As long as it has content that someone may want, we > can't really get rid of it.
>
> If that's the case - my mistake.
> From names and activities some of them(old,master) looked more like leftovers from some experiments.
>
> Alexander Kurtakov
> Red Hat Eclipse team
>
>>
>> Doug.
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________ > From: Aleksandar Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx>> > Date: Mon Jul 28 2014 09:48:47 GMT-0400 (EDT)
>> To: CDT General developers list.
>> <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
>> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Deleting obsolete branches
>>
>> Please consider also removing dead git repos
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=434613 while cleaning up. > Alexander Kurtakov Red Hat Eclipse team ----- Original Message ----- > From: > "Marc Khouzam" <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> > > To: "CDT DEV (cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx)"
>> <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>> > Sent: Monday, July 28, > 2014 4:38:01 PM > Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Deleting obsolete branches > > Hi, > > > following-up on this minor cleanup of some of our old branches. I'm > about to > push the following branch/tag > changes to the CDT repo. > > The > history for branch sd90 can be found from its final merge point: >
>> 5a04c15baab806be23f95c343c75659f4158db78 > I therefore deleted ‘sd90’ which > was pointing to a commit already on master. > It can be re-created from that > commit. > > I replaced the branch GDBStandalone with a tag ‘GDBStandalone’, > which I > verified, does keep the history. > I replaced 'bug_197989' with a > tag 'OldSolution_bug_197989'. I believe this > code was obsoleted by branch > > 'bug_197989_B' (c2cec226b35aeae02216daa1153727b95419e215), but I wasn't > sure > if the old history could > be useful, so I kept it. > > I deleted > ‘MultiProcess’ and ‘NewMultiProcess’ which had been created by > mistake and > whose code was > pushed to master shortly after. > > I deleted
>> 'bug_197989_B' which was merged in master at >
>> c2cec226b35aeae02216daa1153727b95419e215 > I deleted 'bug_299911' which was > merged in master at > e39899ec2329c1b44c7a77c520ba3cf2481d6d76 > I deleted > 'bug_45203' which was merged in master at >
>> 48c9cc0b7377f236440209733bea0e6f8753ae9e > > There a bunch of cdt_*_* > branches also. I think those should be converted > into tags (if those tags > don't > exist already). I haven't done that just yet but maybe later. Let me > know > if you disagree. > > Thanks > > Marc > > > From:
>> cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Marc Khouzam > Sent: > Friday, July 25, 2014 2:14 PM > To: 'CDT General developers list.' >
>> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Deleting obsolete branches > > Thanks Andrew, that is > a good point I hadn’t considered. > > In the case of sd90, it was merged > into master, so the history will remain; > in fact, the branch sd90
>> (9bc85c77a33) > is actually a commit on the master branch, so it does not > add much value > (unless it is being used as a tag?) > > I think (but I’ll > check to be sure) that the other branches are in the same > situation, > except for the GDBStandalone, > which was not merged, but something like > squashed into a single commit. In > that case, keeping the branch > seems a > good idea so as to not loose the history. > > If I used a tag instead of a > branch, would it be as effective in keeping the > history? It would allow > to keep our > branches to a minimum and yet, have all the history. I’ll > look into it. > > Thanks for the quick answers > > From:
>> cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Andrew Gvozdev > Sent: > Friday, July 25, 2014 1:53 PM > To: CDT General developers list. > Subject: > Re: [cdt-dev] Deleting obsolete branches > > Hi Marc, > sd90 branch should > stay in repository as it keeps the history of changes. > Master branch does > not keep that history as it was a merge, not rebasing or > cherrypicking. > > > Thanks, > Andrew > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Marc Khouzam
>> <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> > wrote: > Hi > (mostly Jeff, Mikhail, Andrew and Sergey), > > I had a quick mishap with the > repo this morning which required me to remove a > branch I had pushed by > mistake. > This made me think I could take the opportunity to clean up some > old branches > that seem useless. > I find that the more clutter we have in > CDT, the harder it is for new-comers > to figure how things work. > > After > investigation I'd like to start with the below. > Let me know if you want to > keep those branches. > > remotes/origin/GDBStandalone (I believe this was > made as a new commit that > was pushed to master) > >
>> remotes/origin/MultiProcess (created by mistake, feature is in master) > > remotes/origin/NewMultiProcess (created by mistake, feature is in master) > > > remotes/origin/sd90 (merged into master) > remotes/origin/bug_197989_B > (merged into master) > remotes/origin/bug_299911 (merged into master) > > remotes/origin/bug_45203 (merged into master) > > remotes/origin/bug_197989 > (seems obsolete, replaced by _B branch which went > into master) > > Thanks > > > Marc > _______________________________________________ > cdt-dev mailing > list > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To change your > delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from > this list, > visit > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev > >
>> _______________________________________________ > cdt-dev mailing list > > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To change your delivery > options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from > this list, visit > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>> _______________________________________________ cdt-dev mailing list > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> To change your delivery > options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev

_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev