Re: Tag reorg

["Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2005, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
> 
> > 1. Apple tags should go in a subdirectory named "apple".
> > 
> > (Whether you guys want to further subdivide your taggings, is your
> > business)
> > 
> > Not to single apple out, i imagine anyone who wants to do daily or
> > significant amounts of tagging should have their own subdir.
> 
> And, not to omit the obvious, Apple should reconsider whether they
> need to do a daily tag at all.  The daily tag was clearly useful for
> CVS.  For SVN it should suffice to write down a single revision
> number.  Is there any reason to continue the daily tag?

In any case, I think that having subdirectories

tags/distributor/<distributor-name>

and

branches/distributor/<distributor-name>

(rather than having distributor-name at top level) would make sense.

> > Whether we want to further subdivide them, no idea (IE there's a bunch
> > of libc tags, etc).
> 
> I would vote for simply ditching the old-gcc libc, gcc-2_8_1, make,
> gnumach, and hurd tags.  If I had thought about it, I would have had
> the gccmerge process discard them.

The gcc-2_8_1 tags look like snapshot tags and should stay or go along 
with other snapshot tags.  (gcc-2_8_1-RELEASE should stay as being a 
release tag.)

The libc, make, gnumach and hurd tags are presumably mistakes - tags from 
other projects having been in the same repository - and so should go, 
along with any other mistaken tags (and branches).

I think merge tags for active branches should be the responsibility of the 
branch maintainers to do as they wish with.  Merge tags and branchpoint 
tags from branches that have been completely merged into mainline can 
probably go, subject to lists of those it's proposed to remove being 
posted in advance for consideration.  (A few tags such as those marking 
mainline before and after tree-ssa was merged in should stay around.)

There are a few dead branches which were never used, as shown by the last 
commit to them being a long time ago and being the cvs2svn commit creating 
the branch.  I think such branches as faster-compiler-branch, and 
ia64-fp-model-branch (and some others) look stillborn on that basis and so 
could be removed along with any associated branchpoint tags.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
    jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
    joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
    jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)