Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:33:04 +0200 From: Ulf Lilleengen <lulf@freebsd.org> To: Ulrich =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sp=F6rlein?= <uqs@spoerlein.net>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-projects@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r207115 - projects/csup_wip Message-ID: <20100424083304.GA1764@carrot.geeknest.org> In-Reply-To: <20100424071202.GF92627@acme.spoerlein.net> References: <201004231416.o3NEGBni022056@svn.freebsd.org> <20100424071202.GF92627@acme.spoerlein.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 09:12:02AM +0200, Ulrich Spörlein wrote: > On Fri, 23.04.2010 at 14:16:10 +0000, Ulf Lilleengen wrote: > > Author: lulf > > Date: Fri Apr 23 14:16:10 2010 > > New Revision: 207115 > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/207115 > > > > Log: > > - Remove work in progress branch for csup, as it is in sync with head. > > > > Deleted: > > projects/csup_wip/ > > Hi Ulf, > > I wonder what should happen to the vendor/csup branches. As the project > has been collapsed into head/ and development is probably happening > there or in projects/ should we close/delete the vendor/csup branch? > Oh, we have a vendor branch for csup? I've never noticed :) > What's our policy on that? Also, what is going to happen with stuff like > vendor/bc or vendor/cpio once we no longer have them in any active > branch? > I have no idea if there is a policy for this. I would say it depends on whether or not it contains history. For instance, in subversion, there is direct mergeinfo from a merge from vendor/csup to head, because that happened before svn switch. And, if bc is removed from base, I would expect the vendor branch go away too (if I understood your proposal correctly). Anyway, I've never touched this, but I see mux@ did some changes after the svn switch. Ulfhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100424083304.GA1764>