lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <>
Subject Re: Removing branch_5x shortly
Date Sat, 20 Feb 2016 20:33:00 GMT
I was simply going by what we did when we released 5.0, which was to
remove the 4.x branch (or rename it to 4.10.x maybe, but the net
effect is the same).  I thought this was the practice for a major

But it sounds like removing this branch in git is ... not a good idea

And even if it were technically possible (having everyone run "git
remote prune origin"), clearly everyone here disagrees we should do

So I'll leave it be.

Thanks for the git explanation Dawid!  It sounds like one must assume
git's gc is immediate, i.e. upon removing the branch, any commits not
reachable by any other "roots" would be deleted, even if you
"remembered" their specific commit hashes yourself.

Mike McCandless

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Uwe Schindler <> wrote:
> Hi,
> Let's keep the branch. The other ones from 3 and 4 are also still there.
> If anybody commits, who cares? If we don't release, it's just useless work.
> If we want to nuke branch, do the same for previous ones.
> Uwe
> Am 20. Februar 2016 19:58:21 MEZ, schrieb Dawid Weiss
> <>:
>>>  Can't we tag it and then delete the branch?
>> Any reference. So yes, sure you can. But this doesn't really address
>> the second part of my e-mail -- people would still have to issue:
>> git remote prune origin
>> and I don't want to fight Uwe over supposedly magical git commands :)
>>>  if infra let's us put in any git hooks and protect branches from there.
>> Yes, this would be another option (but it requires admin-side tweaks).
>>>  I'm not convinced we need a new strategy just because we are on git
>>> though.
>>>  We generally don't decide
>>> we won't do a release, someone volunteers to put
>>>  one together when something prompts it. I don't remember protecting
>>> branches
>>>  in SVN and so I wonder if we need to now?
>> Exactly. We really don't need to do anything other than just agree to
>> not commit there... that's part of the reason I wanted more "semantic"
>> names for branches -- they're kind of hard to eradicate once created
>> in public.
>> Anyway, as for branch_5x -- no need to protect anything, really. If
>> somebody DOES commit something (by accident or otherwise) we can
>> always revert those commits (or even force the reference to what it
>> was before the mistake, effectively undoing the change).
>> D.
>> ________________________________
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> --
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, 28213 Bremen

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message