Proposal to change branch maintenance

[Tom Tromey]

Tom> I don't propose renaming existing branches.

Jan> IMO if there should be a different naming the existing should be renamed,
Jan> otherwise it is more complicated/mess than it was.

It seems the consensus is to rename them.
So, let's do that.

Also I think we should delete all the branches that we got from
gdb.git.  There's no need for them in archer.git.

I'll do the branch deletions next week or so, then the renames after
that.

Tom> Third, what about adopting a convention for a "README.archer" file in
Tom> the top-level of each branch?

Jan> That would not work for merges of multiple branches.  Some
Jan> ARCHER.branchname would work.

Ok, it turns out that --edit-description doesn't really do what we'd
like.  Bummer.

I found this that shows a way that we could make README.archer work
without excessive merge issues:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2108405/branch-descriptions-in-git
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/928646/how-do-i-tell-git-to-always-select-my-local-version-for-conflicted-merges-on-a-s/930495#930495


Alternatively we could pick the README file name based on the branch
name.  This isn't as convenient but it would also work.

Tom