[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [mdt-ocl.dev] bug and archive branches
|
Ed,
I don't understand your proposal. It takes me about 1 minute per bug to
check with Bugzilla whether it's really active. This becomes unscalable
personally, I see two primary use cases for the bug/* branches:
- work on a fix for the bug
- understand a bug fix's history (this shows whether/where/when the
fix was merged, but that's not my primary concern when I look at a bug's
history).
I wouldn't use git as the primary source for understanding which bug is
currently being worked on. I see Bugzilla as the means for this.
With this, and with regular fetch activities, I end up with bug/*
branches and origin/bug/* branches which after the rename are duplicates
of the corresponding archive/* and origin/archive/* branches. This
clutters the list of branches in the local git of everyone fetching
regularly and requires time for everyone locally to remove the now
redundant bug/* branches. Besides, a quick glance at the local list of
branches then cannot even be used to detect whether a bug is closed or
not. This would require a "git ls-remote" instead (is this supported by
eGit?).
once there are 100 bug branches. With the renaming, I know that I lose
no significant history by deleting the archive branches, and there are
only a modest 10, hopefully decreasing to 5, active bug branches to
check for deletion when I want further pruning.
Deleting an archive branch may lose interesting history for developments
on bug/* branches which so far haven't been merged into any other branch
but then have been classified as WONTFIX or similar. Conversely,
everyone probably knows on which bug branches he/she is actively
working. Tracking can then be limited to those bug/* branches.
Therefore, I again would like to suggest to just not rename bug/*
branches after merging.
Best,
-- Axel
