Re: marking old branches as no longer maintained

On 06/28/2011 03:48 PM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>> But if you want to run some more frequently you'd still be stuck having to manage that yourself. There's actually
nota lot of point in doing it that way, though. We don't build unless there have been changes on the branch, unless
toldotherwise, so you might as well run frequently and test all the branches - for the most part only HEAD (i.e.
master)will be built because it gets far more changes than the back branches.
 
> It was something Tom asked for ages ago, so he could see if the
> Windows build got broken more promptly. I didn't want multiple
> branches running with increased frequency as I run a number of animals
> on a single machine with vmware, and a back patched change could cause
> a lot of extra work.


Oh, so maybe we need to have some sort of throttle. Probably just for 
non-head or non-(head-or-latest) would suffice.

cheers

andrew