Future? On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 8:57 PM John Ralls <jra...@ceridwen.us> wrote:
> We're 3 days away from releasing 5.0 and so 4 days away from shuffling the > branches. Absent any objections I intend to rename the current "master" to > "stable" and make it the default branch on Github. Bugfixes and > minor-to-medium features can go to stable. I'll rename maint to > archive/maint so that nobody is tempted to commit to it any more. > > We have a little time to discuss the medium-to-major branch name. We don't > need it until someone has a medium-to-major feature branch to merge in. > While "unstable" is the logical opposite of "stable" it's also shares too > many letters, though unlike "main" and "maint" at least the extra letters > are upfront so you're less likely to get bitten by completion. I'm inclined > toward "development". "devel" would be OK if spell-check didn't keep trying > to turn it into "level". > > Regards, > John Ralls > > > > On Nov 18, 2022, at 9:08 AM, john <jra...@ceridwen.us> wrote: > > > > We could pinch from Debian and use stable, testing, and unstable, where > testing is the alpha/beta pre-major-release weeklies. > > > > Regards, > > John Ralls > > > > > >> On Nov 18, 2022, at 7:55 AM, Geert Janssens <geert.gnuc...@kobaltwit.be> > wrote: > >> > >> I'm fine with just doing the simple name change for our two primary > branches as it's the option of least effort. > >> > >> I'd rather have a different name than "main" though. It's a bit > ambiguous and like "master" suggesting this branch is somehow more > important than the other long-term branch "maint". I'd rather have names > that help guide contributors to the right branch to work from. I don't > think there's a silver bullet here though, but some names may give more of > a hint than others. Some suggestions: > >> > >> * "current" vs "future" as shorthands for "current-release-series" or > "future-release-series" > >> * "maintenance" ("maint") vs "development" ("devel") > >> * "stable" vs "development" > >> > >> That said, I'm also very interested in the single branch model as > alternative. Discussion on that is for another message. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Geert > >> > >> Op maandag 14 november 2022 20:59:26 CET schreef john: > >>>> On Nov 14, 2022, at 11:11 AM, Alex Aycinena <alex.aycin...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> how about a simple change, like calling it 'main' rather than > >>>> 'master' and keeping the existing pattern for branches. > >>> > >>> That would be OK as long as long as the two names aren't similar. main > and > >>> stable would be OK; with main and maint one is far too likely to do > >>> something to the wrong branch. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> John Ralls > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> gnucash-devel mailing list > >>> gnucash-devel@gnucash.org > >>> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gnucash-devel mailing list > > gnucash-devel@gnucash.org > > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel > > _______________________________________________ > gnucash-devel mailing list > gnucash-devel@gnucash.org > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel > _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel