Clean up/cull stale branches?

[TommyMurphyTM1234]

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.
• Only it and 3 other branches are deemed by GitHub to be active:
  • https://github.com/riscv-collab/riscv-openocd/branches/active
• All 62 other branches are deemed by GitHub to be stale - most inactive for years and a few inactive for several 7+ months:
  • https://github.com/riscv-collab/riscv-openocd/branches/stale

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" branch riscv?

[TommyMurphyTM1234]

Can/should this be done?
Retaining so many branches that are up to 7 years old seems pointless and just confusing to me.
On the other hand maybe some of these still contain some useful changes that might be revived at some stage?
And if the branches are not of interest then they can easily be ignored?

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...

[JanMatCodasip]

As for master vs. riscv -

I'd recommend to keep the current state - to retain riscv as the main branch where the development takes place. The reason is that external users of this repository already count with that (e.g. in their scripts), and I would not like to break things for them.

 

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 archive/<orig_name> (or similar) to clearly mark them as archived, but still leave them available should anyone need them.

@TommyMurphyTM1234 @en-sc @MarekVCodasip Would you agree?

[TommyMurphyTM1234]

Thanks for the feedback @JanMatCodasip.

As for master vs. riscv -

I'd recommend to keep the current state - to retain riscv as the main branch where the development takes place. The reason is that external users of this repository already count with that (e.g. in their scripts), and I would not like to break things for them.

I may not have been clear. riscv is the "main" branch and I was not suggesting that this should change. If anything I was suggesting that the master branch should be eliminated (or, as you suggest, marked in some way as "archived"). I was not suggesting that master be made the "main" branch or that riscv be renamed to master. (Also since the use of the term "master" is discouraged these days for other reasons).

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 archive/<orig_name> (or similar) to clearly mark them as archived, but still leave them available should anyone need them.

That sounds like a good compromise for now alright.
Or maybe a branch can actually be archived in GitHub? I'm not sure. Maybe it is only possible to archive a while repo?
Either way, if something like this is decided maybe it can be done via GitHub directly by an admin with suitable privileges rather than requiring a PR from a forked repo as that seems convoluted?

Thanks again for the feedback @JanMatCodasip.

[JanMatCodasip]

@TommyMurphyTM1234 Thank you for your reply.

If anything I was suggesting that the master branch should be eliminated (or, as you suggest, marked in some way as "archived").

Sounds good to me. We could mark the "master" as archived, too: master -> archive/master.

Or maybe a branch can actually be archived in GitHub? I'm not sure.

I don't know of an "archive" feature. We can only rename the branch (or make a tag and then delete it).

maybe it can be done via GitHub directly by an admin with suitable privileges rather than requiring a PR from a forked repo as that seems convoluted?

If all maintainers agree to do this, I'll be happy to make these changes :)