From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should 'old-branches' and 'other-branches' be kept? Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:53:22 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20140211203302.67959380834@snark.thyrsus.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1392170012 26546 80.91.229.3 (12 Feb 2014 01:53:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:53:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: esr@thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 12 02:53:41 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 1WDP18-0002Sr-IJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:53:38 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36871 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WDP18-0005n4-4W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:53:38 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48439) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WDP0z-0005mk-Rj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:53:35 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WDP0u-0000lz-0h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:53:29 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:21615) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WDP0t-0000lt-Td for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:53:23 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EABK/CFFFpaAU/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA2IQgYMsROQDpEKA4hhnBmBXoMV X-IPAS-Result: Av4EABK/CFFFpaAU/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA2IQgYMsROQDpEKA4hhnBmBXoMV X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="47366207" Original-Received: from 69-165-160-20.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.165.160.20]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 11 Feb 2014 20:53:23 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id F2AC1602E2; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:53:22 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20140211203302.67959380834@snark.thyrsus.com> (Eric S. Raymond's message of "Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:33:02 -0500 (EST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 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:169542 Archived-At: > I'm looking at the old0branches and other-branches remote groups. It > seems pretty clear that most of these were either marged to trunk or > abandoned during the CVS period. Are any of them worth keeping > around? 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. Stefan