-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 327
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
Clean up/cull stale branches? #1051
Comments
Can/should this be done? If any/all should be deleted then maybe an admin with rights to delete them via the GitHub interface could do this rather than requiring a PR from a forked repo as it seems a bit convoluted to do it that way? Feedback welcome... |
As for I'd recommend to keep the current state - to retain
As for cleaning up old branches - I'd also prefer to clean these up. For the time being, I'd recommend to rename all the branches to @TommyMurphyTM1234 @en-sc @MarekVCodasip Would you agree? |
Thanks for the feedback @JanMatCodasip.
I may not have been clear.
That sounds like a good compromise for now alright. Thanks again for the feedback @JanMatCodasip. |
@TommyMurphyTM1234 Thank you for your reply.
Sounds good to me. We could mark the "master" as archived, too:
I don't know of an "archive" feature. We can only rename the branch (or make a tag and then delete it).
If all maintainers agree to do this, I'll be happy to make these changes :) |
As far as I can see...
riscv
is the effective "master" branch in this repo on which most development occurs and into which development on other branches is merged.Perhaps some or all of these stale branches can be culled in order to avoid confusion - especially confusion between the
master
branch and the effective "master" branchriscv
?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: