Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Why? I fail to see any reason for this. When you don't need a file anymore, you delete it. When you don't need a directory anymore, you delete it. I can't see why it should be any different for branches. Deleting a branch makes life easier for people looking for branches, reduce the noise, and makes the repository cleaner. > 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 been merged or superseded by newer branches.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. There is nothing to gain and all to lose. If somebody wants to revive a dormient or closed branch, he can do it with a simple SVN command which takes less than a minute to be typed and executed. If we fail to remove them, the branch will be seen many thousands of times in the "svn ls" output, by people looking for active branches, and it will be just unwanted noise. Giovanni Bajo
