Would the "stable" branch be any different from the "release" branch? If it's actually a not-so-stable development branch for 3.3 while a separate branch contains development for 3.4, then maybe indeed calling branches v3.3 and v3.4 make more sense.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org The knowable universe is everything, as far as we can know. On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 2:13 PM Martin Simmons <mar...@lispworks.com> wrote: > > >>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 19:52:01 +0200, Rudolf Schlatte said: > > Cancel-Lock: sha1:dqYu7Py9JNAyZJWALyW1kLx3PD8= > > > > "Robert Goldman" <rpgold...@sift.info> > > writes: > > > > > If stable seems bad, is there another name we could use to avoid > > > renaming? Like maint for "maintenance"? > > > > > > I don't love maint, because it's too close to main, and it seems like > > > main has an edge in familiarity if not in meaningfulness. > > > > > > legacy? > > > > > > Unless we can come up with something better than stable, it seems like > > > the least-worst alternative. But there's all week to come up with > > > something better! > > > > > > > In the first email you said that the purpose of that branch was to > > permit continuation of the 3.3 release series, so maybe call the branch > > "v3.3"? That way, there can be multiple such branches without resorting > > to "stable", "oldstable" etc. names. > > Yes, that's the kind of name I meant. > > Or include the stableness in the name with something like "stable/3.3" > (c.f. FreeBSD). > > -- > Martin Simmons > LispWorks Ltd > http://www.lispworks.com/ >