[GNC-dev] Git branches

[Derek Atkins]

Well, the role has changed people over time.
But no, the scripts are not in git.
-d

On Mon, November 14, 2022 1:30 pm, john wrote:
> Wow, I'm elevated to a whole department! ;-) I wish I had the clones to
> make it true!
>
> If the scripts are in git on code then Geert or I can update them as
> needed when we shift branches.
>
> Regards,
> John Ralls
>
>> On Nov 14, 2022, at 8:26 AM, Derek Atkins <derek at ihtfp.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have no objection to changing branch names.
>>
>> Just keep in mind that several build scripts depend on the branch names,
>> so if they change once, that's fine, but if they are constantly changing
>> (e.g. 4.x, 5.x, 4.99, 6.x, etc) then we may need to rework the scripts
>> so
>> I don't have to coordinate with release-engineering when a new branch
>> gets
>> created.  (This dev-docs, etc).
>>
>> -derek
>>
>> On Mon, November 14, 2022 11:17 am, Geert Janssens wrote:
>>> This had been brewing in my mind as well, so thanks for bringing this
>>> up.
>>>
>>> When I considered alternative branch names I initially thought of
>>> "stable"
>>> vs "development"
>>> or "devel" with an optional "unstable" at times of pre-releases.
>>>
>>> However when thinking this through some more I started wondering
>>> whether
>>> we really
>>> should limit ourselves to just two (or three) branch names.
>>>
>>> We could also name our branches "4.x", "5.x" and so on to indicate the
>>> release series this
>>> branch is for. At some point we just stop using the older branches. We
>>> can
>>> choose to drop
>>> them or just leave them in the git history as it suits is best.
>>>
>>> Both naming schemes have advantages and drawbacks. I like the direct
>>> relationship
>>> between branch name and releases that will be on it for the latter
>>> scheme.
>>> Although I admit
>>> this relationship doesn't hold for the pre-releases, unless we make
>>> that a
>>> separate branch for
>>> those like eg "4.9xx".
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Geert
>>>
>>> Op zondag 13 november 2022 21:40:14 CET schreef john:
>>>> Since Geert brought up our relationship with Github I thought it
>>>> timely
>>>> to
>>>> start a discussion about a related trend: The name of the git
>>>> repository's
>>>> primary branches. There's an ongoing effort in the software
>>>> development
>>>> community for the last 25-30 years or so to remove the terms master
>>>> and
>>>> slave; originally when used together (as in processes) but more
>>>> recently
>>>> when used alone. This recently includes the name of the primary branch
>>>> in a
>>>> git repository. The Gitlab folks have a nice summary at
>>>> https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2021/03/10/new-git-default-branch-name/.
>>>>
>>>> 'Master' was the standard when we started using git 10 years ago and
>>>> so
>>>> we
>>>> adopted it and still use it. Aside from the cultural sensitivity
>>>> issues
>>>> (primarily in the United States because of our unfortunate history
>>>> with
>>>> forced importation and enslavement of Africans) it has proved to be a
>>>> bit
>>>> confusing to new contributors.
>>>>
>>>> The new standard default is 'main'. I think that would be fine for
>>>> htdocs
>>>> where we have master and beta: Main would better express that that's
>>>> the
>>>> branch that you see when you visit https://www.gnucash.org
>>>> <https://www.gnucash.org/>. The gnucash-on-foo repositories for the
>>>> build
>>>> processes have only master branches so it doesn't really matter what
>>>> the
>>>> branch is called.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think 'main' is the right name for gnucash or gnucash-docs
>>>> because
>>>> it does nothing about the confusion factor. Note that the default
>>>> branch
>>>> on
>>>> those two is maint but we still use master for the next major
>>>> release's
>>>> branch. The most expressive titles would be current-major-release and
>>>> next-major-release but they're a bit wordy; OTOH just current (or
>>>> curr)
>>>> and
>>>> next leave a new contributor to ask current and next what? maint is
>>>> concise
>>>> and not terrible for a branch that gets only bug fixes and small
>>>> features.
>>>> Lots of generic names for the next-major-release branch (future, devel
>>>> or
>>>> development, major-change) come to mind but I'm not sure that any of
>>>> them
>>>> clearly express the intent of the branch.
>>>>
>>>> Comments?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> John Ralls
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> gnucash-devel mailing list
>>>> gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
>>>> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gnucash-devel mailing list
>>> gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
>>> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
>>       derek at ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
>>       Computer and Internet Security Consultant
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnucash-devel mailing list
>> gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
>> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-devel mailing list
> gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
>


-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       derek at ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant