On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Mike Stump wrote: > For old branches that are dead and of no use (because they are merged into > newer branches), I'm include to rm them, and for old branches that have ideas, > but, may never see the light of day, be conservative and leave them alone.
I'd rather put dead branches which had development but have now been merged into newer branches or mainline in branches/closed instead of removing them, and just rm dead branches which never had any commits (or never had any useful commits, e.g. gcc-3_5-integration-branch where the only commit was to change the version number), and non-GCC branches from old-gcc such as glibc-2_0_x. Note that the list of "Inactive Development Branches" in svn.html includes dormant branches (development not merged but branch not active, but could potentially reactivate) as well ones which have been merged or superseded by newer branches. I think for now we should leave the dormant branches as-is and just move those which are dead. (svn.html also mentions cxx-reflection-branch which (per <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-07/msg00795.html>) was omitted from the conversion, the maintainer will need to take a diff from CVS and recreate that branch cleanly but in the mean time perhaps svn.html should make the status clearer.) -- Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CodeSourcery mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)
