2012/3/21 Diederik van Liere dvanliere@gmail.com:
Hi y'all,
With the pending git migration upon us,is this also the right time to think about naming conventions for git branches or is there nu such a need? I can imagine that a branch aimed at fixing a bug could be named B12345, or something like that. Or are 'descriptive' names good enough? One reason to have naming conventions is that it would make it easier in the future to run scripts to collect stats on particular branches. That would be much harder in a complete freetext environment.
In the few commits i did until now, i usually did called it something like "bug_31817_add_bdi_to_allowed_tags". Nobody complained yet. I'm OK with "2012/bug_31817_add_bdi_to_allowed_tags", too, or anything else that will be decided.
When i use `git review -d' on a change that was in the aforementioned branch, another branch called "review/amire80/bug/31817" is created, so i suppose that Gerrit identified the bug number (or maybe somebody did it manually and i missed it). I don't quite understand why two branches are created for pretty much the same thing. Maybe i should create a branch called "review/amire80/bug/31817" in the first place?
Or maybe i shouldn't use `git review -d' at all?
And, there's also the issue of several branches per one bug, so it's possible that it's not enough.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni