Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 2012-08-28, 01:55
Robert Evans 2012-08-28, 13:47
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 2012-08-28, 18:36
Robert Evans 2012-08-28, 20:35
Owen OMalley 2012-08-31, 21:26
Arun C Murthy 2012-08-31, 21:28
Owen OMalley 2012-08-31, 22:04
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 2012-09-04, 19:35
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Owen O'Malley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Seems to me that stale branches have started accumulating.
> I just cleaned up some obvious trash from the branches directory:
> I'd also like to delete the now defunct and unreleased:
> I would like to rename the following release branches:
> branch-0.20-security-203 -> branch-0.20.203
> branch-0.20-security-204 -> branch-0.20.204
> branch-0.20-security-205 -> branch-0.20.205
> I believe the following ones should also be deleted:
> branch-1.0.2 (equal to the tag/release-1.0.2)
>> Here's what I am thinking.
>> 2.* line
>> - 2.0.1-alpha is released, so branch-2.0.1-alpha should instead be called
> We should rename the 2.x branches as:
> branch-2.0.1-alpha -> branch-2.0
> branch-2.1.0-alpha -> branch-2.1
>> 0.23.* line
>> - 0.23.1 was released long time back, so knock off branch-0.23.1
>> - 0.23.2 seems to be dead, so knock off branch-0.23.2 too?
>> - 0.23.3 is the next expected release, so I suppose all the commits are
>> going into branch-0.23. Either we can
>> -- create branch-0.23.3 out of branch-0.23 now itself or
>> -- commit as is to branch-0.23 and create RC out of the same whenever
>> that happens.
> There should only be a single 0.23 branch, so we should delete
> Any concerns?
Looks good to me.
I could go either way on the branch-2.x ones.