Thanks, Uwe. I guess the problem is that the tas list is way too long to easily view in the drop-down list, compared to the full page view I am used to from the old svn view.

Is there some way to reorder the tags? I mean, most commonly I just want to access recent releases, but 5.4.1 is way down the list. And Solr 1.4 is right at the top! I guess I'll have to use the search box to more quickly access releases.

The fact that all the tags have this long string of "releases/(lucene|solr|lucene-solr)/" prefixes just makes it even less easy to use the drop-down list.

The branch drop-down will probably quickly hit that non-ease of use if people push a lot of work-in-progress branches. Again, i would be nice if the most recent branches were at the top of the list.

But these are all relatively minor nits. Overall, I'm happier to view code in github than the old viewvc. Somebody still needs to update the Solr Resources page to include the github link in addition to the legacy svn viewvc link.

-- Jack Krupansky

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Uwe Schindler <> wrote:



they are still there as tags. If you want to “reactivate” them, just create a new branch from the tag:


e.g., history/branches/lucene-solr/solr7790


Most of them were unused (because we did not always delete them at reintegrate), so we just moved them to history as tags.


In general I have private branches in my local checkout. I name them “private/LUCENE-xxxx” and never push them. For larger changes where more than one person works on, we can push branches, but as discussed before, they should follow a naming convention and should not be top-level.





Uwe Schindler

H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen



From: Jack Krupansky []
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 3:00 PM
To: Lucene-dev <>
Subject: Re: Naming branches so that life is easier


I don't recall any discussion of the status of existing svn non-release branches (most of which were named LUCENE-<Jira#>)... was it decided to just abandon them or are they hidden somewhere now in git/github?


And is the new policy to encourage such branches in git/github or that people should keep them in private forks?

-- Jack Krupansky


On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Shai Erera <> wrote:

I think that all remote branches should be JIRA related. I.e. I don't see myself pushing a remote branch like shaie/something. Since we do all development through JIRA, then if someone experiments with something and wants to push it to the Git repo, I think that should be done within the context of a JIRA issue.

Naming these branches jira/lucene-XXXX or jira/solr-XXXX (I don't mind if we use hyphen or underscore) or dropping the jira/ prefix -- I'm fine w/ both. I personally don't think that we need the JIRA prefix, since it's pretty obvious to tell by the name of the branch, but I can go either way.



On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:01 AM <> wrote:

Establishing conventions and adhering to them would be good.


Some observations I have with your example:  you suggested a hypothetical branch named "dweiss/jira3826".  IMO that branch name isn't a great name because it is ambiguous with respect to it being for Lucene or Solr.  Most of our branches in the past have been in the format for the JIRA issue; sometimes lowercased or sometimes with an underscore.  It'd be nice to standardize that.  I propose the form "solr_3626" but I care little and only would like to see something adhered to.  Incorporating a branch for a JIRA issue with someone's user id is I think questionable, but I have no strong opinion.  I think we should generally do it or not do it.


~ David


On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:00 AM Dawid Weiss <> wrote:

Hey folks. Just noticed new branches are being pushed to the Apache
repository. Having digested SVN's branches I'd like to suggest a
naming convention for branches so that they appear more palatable. For

$ git branch -r
  origin/HEAD -> origin/master

The labels (branches and tags) in git can be pseudo-hierarchical. It
is therefore nice to see more "semantic" branches, like:


I don't think it's realistic to enforce any rigid convention, but I'm
sure you get the gist.

These branches are no different to regular, they're just labeled with a slash:

# checkout a given branch/ commit (master here) and create a branch from it.
git checkout master -b dweiss/jira3826
# push this branch to origin and make it track changes on the origin's
pushed branch.
git push origin HEAD -u

This is a suggestion only, not a requirement, but I'm sure you'll grow
to like it. The upside is that everyone then knows whether it's your
experimental stuff, something still being worked on, etc.


P.S. There is always a way to "rename" a branch -- it is a label
attached to a commit after all -- I'll leave these commands for you to

git checkout master-solr-8621 -b jira/solr8621-master
git push origin HEAD -u
# remove local branch
git branch -D master-solr-8621
# remove remote branch (use *only* on the stuff you actually control
and merged back or abandoned)
git push origin :master-solr-8621

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


Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker