Hi all,

Now that the patches from 0.20-append have been merged into 0.20.205,
I think we should consider officially retiring this branch.

In essence, that means that we would:
1) Ask contributors to provide patches against 0.20-security branch
instead of 0.20-append
2) Move the branch itself into some kind of attic/ directory

Thoughts?
-Todd
--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

+1.

-dhruba

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Now that the patches from 0.20-append have been merged into 0.20.205,
> I think we should consider officially retiring this branch.
>
> In essence, that means that we would:
> 1) Ask contributors to provide patches against 0.20-security branch
> instead of 0.20-append
> 2) Move the branch itself into some kind of attic/ directory
>
> Thoughts?
> -Todd
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>

--
Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In essence, that means that we would:
> 1) Ask contributors to provide patches against 0.20-security branch
> instead of 0.20-append

+1

> 2) Move the branch itself into some kind of attic/ directory

You can just delete it. Subversion always keeps branches from previous
points in time.

-- Owen

+1.

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Owen O'Malley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In essence, that means that we would:
> > 1) Ask contributors to provide patches against 0.20-security branch
> > instead of 0.20-append
>
> +1
>
> > 2) Move the branch itself into some kind of attic/ directory
>
> You can just delete it. Subversion always keeps branches from previous
> points in time.
>
> -- Owen
>

+1.

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Jitendra Pandey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> +1.
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Owen O'Malley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In essence, that means that we would:
> > > 1) Ask contributors to provide patches against 0.20-security branch
> > > instead of 0.20-append
> >
> > +1
> >
> > > 2) Move the branch itself into some kind of attic/ directory
> >
> > You can just delete it. Subversion always keeps branches from previous
> > points in time.
> >
> > -- Owen
> >
>

On 10/03/2011 02:50 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> 2) Move the branch itself into some kind of attic/ directory

We might:
 1. Let it lie, alongside other dead branches like branch-0.1, etc.
 2. Create a directory for dead branches and move all of the dead
branches there.
 3. Remove all dead branches.

I'd suggest we do (1) for now, and separately address the issue of dead
branches.

While removed branches are still retrievable they're harder to find and
removing them doesn't save space.  So if we find that the branches
directory is too cluttered then an archive directory might be useful.
I've seen some other projects do that, while many don't seem to bother.

Doug

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 10/03/2011 02:50 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> > 2) Move the branch itself into some kind of attic/ directory
>
> We might:
>  1. Let it lie, alongside other dead branches like branch-0.1, etc.
>  2. Create a directory for dead branches and move all of the dead
> branches there.
>  3. Remove all dead branches.
>
> I'd suggest we do (1) for now, and separately address the issue of dead
> branches.
>
> While removed branches are still retrievable they're harder to find and
> removing them doesn't save space.  So if we find that the branches
> directory is too cluttered then an archive directory might be useful.
> I've seen some other projects do that, while many don't seem to bother.
>
+1

>
> Doug
>

--
"Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually
working and scaling.
 - Bjarne Stroustrup

http://www.jeffmaury.com
http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury