Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Problem: too much undocumented branches #7

Open
hairmare opened this issue Feb 17, 2017 · 3 comments
Open

Problem: too much undocumented branches #7

hairmare opened this issue Feb 17, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@hairmare
Copy link
Member

hairmare commented Feb 17, 2017

I think c24761c is a leaf in a branch that does not have any relevant changes left to merge. Here's a merge: radiorabe:512cc4f...radiorabe:c24761c

Also, it looks like legacy-fdk-aac-dabplus is just there to point to 86a8e8c.

Have a look at the network graph to see them.

Proposed Solution:

  • Merge c24761c or remove the odr-project-reorg ref to it
  • Tag 86a8e8c as 1.2.0-0.fdk.2.3.2.odr.toolame.0.2l.odr ¯_(ツ)_/¯ and remove the ref.

edit: what's wrong with link formatting 🙁 wtf, /commit/ worky, /tree/ no-worky 😲

@paraenggu
Copy link
Member

The odr-project-reorg branch can be removed, it was a temporary development branch which was used while adapting the spec to upstream's project reorganisation and got finally merged into master.

legacy-fdk-aac-dabplus reflects the state of the package before upstream's project reorg. I don't see any harm in keeping this branch around. It was already helpful in the past to see how the package and the software was organized before.

@hairmare
Copy link
Member Author

Removed odr-project-reorg.

I was expecting such an explanation of the legacy-fdk-aac-dabplus branch. I hear there's a tool called git that supports tags.

If you want to add more context you could annotate the tag, the version I provided 1.2.0-0.fdk.2.3.2.odr.toolame.0.2l.odr is based on the state of things in the specfile atm. I think it is correct and reflects the contents of the package at that state.

@hairmare
Copy link
Member Author

1.2.0-1 would also be a proper way to tag it, at least that's what was accepted in the changelog.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants