> 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
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,
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•
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",
> 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
"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
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
> 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
>
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
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
