Attila Lendvai <attila.lend...@gmail.com> writes: > what i would do: > > - one branch that holds the bleeding edge. i'd call it main, just to go > with the flow. > - branches for ASDF versions (down to the desired resolution, probably > major.minor), so that you can easily cherry pick or backport fixes into > them. a new version-branch is forked off of main whenever a release > happens. > - optionally a stable *tag* as an indirection to the latest release. it > communicates which specific git revision is it that the maintainer > considers the stable state at any moment in time. it comes handy e.g. in CI > scripts that want to check out the latest ASDF release, etc... >
I like this! IMO a big win of having the major and minor number in the branch name is that it's a better experience for users. If it's a single `maintenance` branch then a git pull may wind up changing their version completely. If they have any local changes as well, things might get a bit hairy when `maintenance` changes minor versions as that wouldn't be a fast-forward update. Additionally having a version independent `stable` identifier (tag or branch) is nice for the use cases described here. -Eric