On 12 Jul 2021, at 13:36, Faré wrote:
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.
Yes, it would, because this branch would be where we put fixes to the
released branch while, on `main`, we develop code for 3.4.
I was thinking of not calling the branch `v3.3` because if we ever get
past 3.4, we would want a maintenance branch for 3.4, while `main` would
be for 3.5 or 4 depending on what the future holds.
I have a mild preference for having the maintenance branch, whatever we
call it, just point to whatever has been released and is accumulating
bug fixes. I figured that having a `stable` would be like having a
`main`, instead of renaming `main` to whatever the upcoming version
number is. Just like Debian has `stable` and `testing`, but the precise
meaning of these changes over time.
I'm willing to be argued out of this, as I was argued out of `dev` in
favor of `main`, but I am not convinced by the arguments for `v3.3`
versus `stable` yet. What makes us need `v3.3` instead of stable if we
don't need `v3.4` instead of `main`?
—♯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/
