From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eric S. Raymond" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should 'old-branches' and 'other-branches' be kept? Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 22:23:44 -0500 Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs Message-ID: <20140212032344.GA20023@thyrsus.com> References: <20140211203302.67959380834@snark.thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1392175458 17663 80.91.229.3 (12 Feb 2014 03:24:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 03:24:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 12 04:24:27 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WDQR0-0000cm-Po for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 04:24:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37123 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WDQR0-0005in-7b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 22:24:26 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50556) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WDQQt-0005id-K9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 22:24:23 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WDQQp-00071f-Kw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 22:24:19 -0500 Original-Received: from static-71-162-243-5.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([71.162.243.5]:40515 helo=snark.thyrsus.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WDQQp-00071Y-GC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 22:24:15 -0500 Original-Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C47AD380834; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 22:23:44 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 71.162.243.5 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:169544 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier : > http://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/r/emacs/README says: > > [...] > `old-branches' Directory of branches that have been merged into trunk already. > `other-branches' Directory of various other branches. > [...] > > I don't see any point in getting rid of them, tho. As requested by Andreas Schwab, I'm trying to do lifetime analysis on the =-prefixed attic files from RCS so they can be renamed and have correct deletion points. There are plenty of cases of the same file existing under both both =-prefixed and non-prefixed names; when that happens, I have to do a lot of hand-work to figure out what's actually going on, The dead branches complicate this process a *lot*, esoecially the part where I back up through the history looking for a ChangeLog entry marking the actual deletion point. I just figured out that the reason I've only found two real deletion points in sixteen tries is because the dead branches are getting in the way. This makes me want to chop them all off. -- Eric S. Raymond