> Important note: the strange magic requires the official git completion script.
I dislike the official git completion script because it’s so slow when working with large repos. On macOS - because of vagaries of the way its file system works - with large repos it’s effectively unusable. Hint to completion script writers: if your “smart” completion ever takes seconds, it’s worse than useless and far worse than “dumb” filename completion.
Seems like a sensible way to archive branches. It's not like a tag and branch are actually very different anyway, right? A tag is a pointer that always refers to the same commit while a branch is a pointer that follows commits forward. And for something that's archived, you don't need the pointer updating mechanism.
Luckily commonly used forges for collaboration have the ability to make tags immutable. Any repository where multiple people collaborate on a project should have that feature enabled by default. I'm still waiting for the day where tags are immutable by default with no option exposed to change it.
I'm sure that would cause problems for some, but transitive labels already exist in Git: branches.
How often did you go back to the archived tagches that are older than say, 6 months ? Seems very niche, unless dunno, there are no version tags in the repo.
True. At work our flow is to tag commits that we want to mark as release candidates and delete feature branches after their PRs are merged/declined. We've never had a need to archive branches.
It seems very useful for archiving branches that never got merged.
Sometimes I work on a feature, and it doesn’t quite work out for some reason or another. The branch will probably never get merged, but it’s still useful for reference later when I want to see what didn’t work when taking a second attempt.
Currently, those abandoned branches have been polluting my branch list. In the past I have cloned the repo a second time just to “archive” them. Tags seem like a better idea.
I don’t think I’ve ever returned to a branch that I can easily rebase on top of the main branch. And if I really wanted to, I’d prefer to extract a patch so that I can copy the interesting lines.
Any branch older than 6 months is a strong candidate for deletion.
Wonder if it's worth squashing in the branch, merging to main, then immediately reverting.
Now the work is visible in history, branch can be deleted, and anyone in the future can search the ticket number or whatever if your commit messages are useful.
Dunno if it's worth polluting history, just thinking out loud.
I sometimes leave merged branches around for quite a while, because I squash them when I merge to master and sometimes when tracking down a bug the ability to bisect very handy.
if you're deleting branches then why would you need to archive them? What would you even archive if you're deleting them? My deeper question is why are you deleting them in the first place though?
IMO a cleaner way to do this is with a headless remote, either on disk or “backed up” on a server. `git push —-all` won’t delete refs on the remote, so you don’t have to do any additional work to record or recover them.
`git push —all backup` will record all of your refs and tags
If you are archiving branches in your own rep, prefix with `ar/` so you can grep -v to conceal them.
See also `git notes` to record metadata an against a commit without changing the commit
I dislike the official git completion script because it’s so slow when working with large repos. On macOS - because of vagaries of the way its file system works - with large repos it’s effectively unusable. Hint to completion script writers: if your “smart” completion ever takes seconds, it’s worse than useless and far worse than “dumb” filename completion.
It's not guaranteed not to change. The UI just makes it harder to update.
would clobber existing tag
Really wish my coworkers would leave old tags as they were heh.
I'm sure that would cause problems for some, but transitive labels already exist in Git: branches.
Sometimes I work on a feature, and it doesn’t quite work out for some reason or another. The branch will probably never get merged, but it’s still useful for reference later when I want to see what didn’t work when taking a second attempt.
Currently, those abandoned branches have been polluting my branch list. In the past I have cloned the repo a second time just to “archive” them. Tags seem like a better idea.
Any branch older than 6 months is a strong candidate for deletion.
Now the work is visible in history, branch can be deleted, and anyone in the future can search the ticket number or whatever if your commit messages are useful.
Dunno if it's worth polluting history, just thinking out loud.
`git push —all backup` will record all of your refs and tags
If you are archiving branches in your own rep, prefix with `ar/` so you can grep -v to conceal them.
See also `git notes` to record metadata an against a commit without changing the commit