Re: Rejiggering the branches

[phoebe Goldman]

> Just like Debian has stable and testing, but the precise meaning of these 
> changes over time.
> 
If your intention is to do the same thing as Debian, why not use the same 
names, too?


> On Jul 12, 2021, at 2:56 PM, Robert Goldman  wrote:
> 
> 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/ 


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Rejiggering the branches

[Robert Goldman]

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  
wrote:



On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 19:52:01 +0200, Rudolf Schlatte said:

Cancel-Lock: sha1:dqYu7Py9JNAyZJWALyW1kLx3PD8=

"Robert Goldman" 
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/

Re: Rejiggering the branches

[Faré]

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  wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 19:52:01 +0200, Rudolf Schlatte said:
> > Cancel-Lock: sha1:dqYu7Py9JNAyZJWALyW1kLx3PD8=
> >
> > "Robert Goldman" 
> > 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/
>

Re: Rejiggering the branches

[Robert Dodier]

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 10:52 AM Rudolf Schlatte  wrote:

> 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.

Hi everyone, I am only an interested onlooker, but anyway I would like
to second the motion for a branch named according to the version
series. Specifically I'll suggest version-3_3 (I seem to recall Git
forbids "." in branch names) with the understanding that every version
on that branch will be 3.3.something.

In this picture development continues on a branch named master or main
or dev or whatever.

Commits can be cherry picked from the, um, primary development branch
to the release branch to backport any changes deemed appropriate.

Any future releases would be on a new branch, presumably version-3_4
or version-4 or whatever; the version-3_3 branch would not be reused
for that purpose.

The benefit of such a scheme, I believe, is just to make it clearer
what's what.

FWIW

Robert Dodier

Re: Rejiggering the branches

[Martin Simmons]

> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 19:52:01 +0200, Rudolf Schlatte said:
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:dqYu7Py9JNAyZJWALyW1kLx3PD8=
> 
> "Robert Goldman" 
> 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/

Re: Rejiggering the branches

[Rudolf Schlatte]

"Robert Goldman" 
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.

Rudi

Re: Rejiggering the branches

[Robert Goldman]

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!


Cheers,
R


On 12 Jul 2021, at 11:13, Martin Simmons wrote:


On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 08:59:16 -0500, Robert Goldman said:


As we move forward, and try to add some new facilities to ASDF, this
seems like a good time to revise the branching structure that we use.

In particular, I would like to add a `stable` branch that will permit
continuation of the 3.3 release series, the need for which is
illustrated by Mark E's recent merge request.


OK, but once you name something "stable", can you change it very much? 
 What
happens when the development branch contains something that is stable 
enough
to call stable again?  If you intend this branch to be the 3.3 release 
series

then using numbers in the name might be preferable.


If we are going to make that change, it seems like a good time to 
rename

the `master` branch to either `main` or `dev`.  Any preferences?


I suggest calling it main like many other projects, unless you intend 
to do
all development on a non-default branch and use main for something 
else.

Using the same name as other projects makes it easier to find it.

--
Martin Simmons
LispWorks Ltd
http://www.lispworks.com/

Re: Rejiggering the branches

[Martin Simmons]

> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 08:59:16 -0500, Robert Goldman said:
> 
> As we move forward, and try to add some new facilities to ASDF, this 
> seems like a good time to revise the branching structure that we use.
> 
> In particular, I would like to add a `stable` branch that will permit 
> continuation of the 3.3 release series, the need for which is 
> illustrated by Mark E's recent merge request.

OK, but once you name something "stable", can you change it very much?  What
happens when the development branch contains something that is stable enough
to call stable again?  If you intend this branch to be the 3.3 release series
then using numbers in the name might be preferable.


> If we are going to make that change, it seems like a good time to rename 
> the `master` branch to either `main` or `dev`.  Any preferences?

I suggest calling it main like many other projects, unless you intend to do
all development on a non-default branch and use main for something else.
Using the same name as other projects makes it easier to find it.

-- 
Martin Simmons
LispWorks Ltd
http://www.lispworks.com/

Re: Rejiggering the branches

[Raymond Toy]

I'd prefer main over dev.  Mostly because github has (forcibly) renamed
master to main (along with other projects) so I'm used to main being what
master used to be.

Having to remember master, main, and dev is just too much work for my old
brain.

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 7:34 AM Robert Goldman  wrote:

> As we move forward, and try to add some new facilities to ASDF, this seems
> like a good time to revise the branching structure that we use.
>
> In particular, I would like to add a stable branch that will permit
> continuation of the 3.3 release series, the need for which is illustrated
> by Mark E's recent merge request.
>
> If we are going to make that change, it seems like a good time to rename
> the master branch to either main or dev. Any preferences?
>
> I'd like to have a quick discussion about this over the week, with an eye
> to getting a solution in place by Friday.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts,
>
> R
>


-- 
Ray

Re: Rejiggering the branches

[Phoebe Goldman]

I prefer dev over main, since it’s more clear about the purpose of the branch. 
Main is just not a very descriptive word. For one thing, for most people, 
stable will actually be the “main” branch.

This isn’t a strong preference, but honestly I doubt anyone has that strong of 
feelings on the subject.

best,
phoebe

> On Jul 12, 2021, at 9:59 AM, Robert Goldman  wrote:
> 
> As we move forward, and try to add some new facilities to ASDF, this seems 
> like a good time to revise the branching structure that we use.
> 
> In particular, I would like to add a stable branch that will permit 
> continuation of the 3.3 release series, the need for which is illustrated by 
> Mark E's recent merge request.
> 
> If we are going to make that change, it seems like a good time to rename the 
> master branch to either main or dev. Any preferences?
> 
> I'd like to have a quick discussion about this over the week, with an eye to 
> getting a solution in place by Friday.
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts,
> 
> R
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Rejiggering the branches

[Robert Goldman]

As we move forward, and try to add some new facilities to ASDF, this 
seems like a good time to revise the branching structure that we use.


In particular, I would like to add a `stable` branch that will permit 
continuation of the 3.3 release series, the need for which is 
illustrated by Mark E's recent merge request.


If we are going to make that change, it seems like a good time to rename 
the `master` branch to either `main` or `dev`.  Any preferences?


I'd like to have a quick discussion about this over the week, with an 
eye to getting a solution in place by Friday.


Thanks for your thoughts,

R

Re: Implementor emails

[Erik Huelsmann]

Hi Robert,

On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 7:34 PM Robert Goldman  wrote:

> My email to the Corman Lisp address bounced, so I am dropping Corman
> Lisp from the mailing list, unless someone can point me at a working
> contact email.
>
> Also -- my emails to the various implementation development mailing
> lists are all on hold waiting for moderator approval (CCL, ABCL, clasp,
> ECL, CMUCL).  Moderators -- if you are on this list, please add me to
> the accept list for your mailing list; I promise I won't abuse it, but I
> cannot spare the time to join all the implementations' mailing lists.
>

For some of the lists on common-lisp.net, I was able to figure out why your
mail was added to the moderation queue. In many cases you *were* added to
the allow-list, but your mail had too many recipients to be allowed through
automatically.

Hope that sheds some light!

Regards,

-- 
Bye,

Erik.

http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.