Cull stale branches #6370
Replies: 8 comments
-
|
These tables were generated via: and (this one is ugly) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I periodically go through mine and delete the defunct ones. Some of the older ones are ideas that never quite worked that I want to keep a human-readable name attached to for future reference. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
What about the 100+ that have already been merged into master? Should we delete any/all of those? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I have been loathe to touch other peoples' branches. Is there a cost to having lots of branches, e.g. some task that it slows down? I've never had it impact me. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'm fine with all the tzumao-branches being removed ; ) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I can't think of any good reason to keep them, but I'd prefer people clean up their own. (I try to always delete my branches after merging; I wish GitHub would more proactively nudge people to do so.) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I would argue there's a cognitive cost to looking through hundreds of branches that have already been merged in to master if you're trying to get a view of what's in flight. As for the others: isn't clear at a glance which of these branches are still relevant. Has Halide changed so little in the last 2 years that picking up on origin/bazel would be more productive than starting from scratch? What about the register promotion branch that's three years old? Are people treating any of the merged branches as release branches? They're not named like they could be, if so. "I heard Halide had a new autoscheduler; that must be in the origin/new_autoscheduler branch!" Only it's actually in master now, was in standalone_autoscheduler, and new_autoscheduler hasn't been touched in 18 months. It's more of an organizational issue than "oh this just takes a lot of disk space, makes clones slower" or something. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I removed all the branches I worked on that have been merged. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
We currently have 295 branches published on the main repo. In particular, 115 of these have already been merged into master. The columns list the age of the branch, the branch tag, and the most recent committer. They are:
We should consider removing these and also taking a closer look at the other branches that have not been merged but are a year old or more.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions