Branch naming policy

[FrancescoPerrone]

READ BUT DO NOT TAKE ACTIONS

It would be better to name branches with you initial at the beginning of the branch's name.

For example, your branch @joshjshea: "joshshea_working" would be "JS_joshshea_working" or "JS_working".

In general we make a branch for "every" feature we implement or "every" task/problem we work on. Starting a branch with your initials means easy access to the branches..

From the internet you can see that:

To rename a branch:

git branch -m

To rename a branch while pointed to any branch: git branch -m -m is short for --move.

To push the local branch and reset the upstream branch: git push origin -u

To delete the remote branch: git push origin --delete

To create a git rename alias: git config --global alias.rename 'branch -m'

[FrancescoPerrone]

READ BUT DO NOT TAKE ACTIONS

It would be better to name branches with you initial at the beginning of the branch's name.

For example, your branch @joshjshea: "joshshea_working" would be "JS_joshshea_working" or "JS_working".

In general we make a branch for "every" feature we implement or "every" task/problem we work on. Starting a branch with your initials means easy access to the branches..

From the internet you can see that:

To rename a branch:

git branch -m

To rename a branch while pointed to any branch: git branch -m -m is short for --move.

To push the local branch and reset the upstream branch: git push origin -u

To delete the remote branch: git push origin --delete

To create a git rename alias: git config --global alias.rename 'branch -m'

PS: this issue can be closed as "NOT PLANNED" when we all read it.

[FrancescoPerrone]

@jeinsle @joshjshea I'm just thinking that "XRF_template_03.ipynb" should be renamed something like "melt_maps.ipynb"? Let me know if you think I should change it.

[jeinsle]

maybe?

the thing is that this notebook while I think in some ways generic enough for a range of techniques, it is getting optimized around XRF.... or will be by the end.

The project is about 'melts' but the underlying code is a more general tool than just melts... this is kind of why @joshjshea pointed out that we could build this into a bigger package long term.... it has the right aspect to it. I think for now keep the file name as is. For the time we keep the project around melts, the seed file as an xrf -mapping template, and then if/when we think of packaging for general consumption, we look into improving the naming.

does this seem reasonable?

j

---

Sometimes I work outside of standard hours, but I do not expect replies during these times.

Joshua F. Einsle Lord Kelvin Adam Smith Research Fellow in Data Science School of Geographical and Earth Sciences University of Glasgow

https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/ges/staff/joshuafranzeinsle/

---

From: Francesco Perrone @.> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 6:28 PM To: FrancescoPerrone/melt_maps @.> Cc: Joshua Franz Einsle @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [FrancescoPerrone/melt_maps] Branch naming policy (Issue #5)

@jeinslehttps://github.com/jeinsle @joshjsheahttps://github.com/joshjshea I'm just thinking that "XRF_template_03.ipynb" should be renamed something like "melt_maps.ipynb"? Let me know if you think I should change it.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/FrancescoPerrone/melt_maps/issues/5#issuecomment-1312052731, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADVMCU7YQ3572OOEODAV2U3WH2F5RANCNFSM6AAAAAAR52EEGQ. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[FrancescoPerrone]

maybe? the thing is that this notebook while I think in some ways generic enough for a range of techniques, it is getting optimized around XRF.... or will be by the end. The project is about 'melts' but the underlying code is a more general tool than just melts... this is kind of why @joshjshea pointed out that we could build this into a bigger package long term.... it has the right aspect to it. I think for now keep the file name as is. For the time we keep the project around melts, the seed file as an xrf -mapping template, and then if/when we think of packaging for general consumption, we look into improving the naming. does this seem reasonable? j …

Very very reasonable!