Chore: delete stale branches #3878
Comments
|
@patrickhlauke Hey. There are 31 branches with your name on them. We decided last week that, in about a month, we're going to delete branches that are more than six months old. Could you go through your branches and delete what you don't want and add the ones that still need attention to the project board? Thanks. |
|
i've looked at some of the closed PRs this week (while at side of the pool), and i think i spotted quite a few that now are closed because, in essence, the WG stalled on actually doing anything with them (sometimes even after eeaching apparent consensus, but then never merging). so i'd suggest having a bit of a closer look at hanging PRs that were closed, as they also then removed/closed issues that were indeed still valid concerns, just never got anywhere due to WG apathy/inertiaOn 28 May 2024, at 22:14, Francis Storr ***@***.***> wrote:
@patrickhlauke Hey. There are 31 branches with your name on them. We decided last week that, in about a month, we're going to delete branches that are more than six months old. Could you go through your branches and delete what you don't want and add them to the backlog board if they still need working on?
—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
I have stated to delete WCAG 2.2 related branches that have a last-updated date that's before the date 2.2 became a recommendation. I'm working on the (maybe risky) assumption that that content would have made it into 2.2, so is fair game. I'll pause on deleting any more until people have hopefully had a chance to look through some of them. |
|
I did a pass through open branches today to delete any that had PRs that were merged, and also deleted a few with PRs that had already been closed for concerete reasons. There are a few others with closed PRs that I haven't deleted yet. I've also done a pass (or two, or three) to update this table, and validated all existing "deleted" rows to note when they were deleted due to merging or some other notable reason. IMO this table is extremely unwieldy, as it will fall out of date in far less time than is required to manually update it. If the main purpose is to track things that need feedback, perhaps we focus on that, either via an issue or project board? The most up-to-date list of branches at any point will be from https://github.com/w3c/wcag/branches/all, which also shows any associated PR for each branch (note: it will only show the most recent PR, which sometimes covers up earlier ones). If you're ever looking at the list of branches in git and want to know if any PRs are associated, you can find out by going to https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pulls and filtering by |
|
We can probably close this issue itself, but carry on with the activity of trying to deal with old PRs (since I believe the majority of branches left over are now associated with PRs). once we made a sizeable dent there, we can revisit if there were any more stale/redundant branches left |
|
FWIW my next steps are:
|
This continues the #3602 issue. This repo has roughly 250 branches, many of which don't have an associated pull request, or contain edits that have since happened elsewhere. This issue can be used to track these branches as they get updated, merged, or deleted.
Note (by @kfranqueiro): This table is unlikely to be further updated in its current form as doing so requires heavy upkeep; see #3878 (comment) for pointers on how to see the latest state of branches.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: