Hello, Mathieu Lirzin <m...@gnu.org> writes:
> Right now we are using this branch naming scheme: > > - micro: for next micro version > - minor: for next minor version > - master: for next major version > > Given the current state of Automake I consider that the main scenario > for contributing to Automake is either fixing a bug or developping an > additional feature ontop of the current release version (1.15). As a > consequence the current branching scheme requires newcomers to read > through the HACKING file to understand that they have to base their work > either on the "micro" or "minor" branch. > [...] > What I am proposing is the following branch name scheme: > > - master: for the next version to be released (currently a minor version) > - maint: for the previous releases (major or minor) merged > from master and their bug fixing commits leading to a micro > version release. > - next: for the "not ready to be release" Automake 2.0 that should > be merged in master when ready (if ever) > > Unless there are better suggestions or valid objections proposed in the > following week, I will send a request to the Savannah administrators to > apply the following renaming: > > - master -> next > - minor -> master > - micro -> maint After doing that request to the Savannah administrators which has not been answered after more than 2 months [1]. I have decided to proceed with the the branch renaming myself by resetting the 'master' branch and then merging 'minor' into 'master' manually. -- Mathieu Lirzin GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37 [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers/2017-07/msg00002.html