[GNC-dev] Git branches

[Alex Aycinena]

>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Derek Atkins <derek at ihtfp.com>
> To: Geert Janssens <geert.gnucash at kobaltwit.be>
> Cc: gnucash-devel <gnucash-devel at gnucash.org>
> Bcc:
> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 11:26:02 -0500
> Subject: Re: [GNC-dev] Git branches
> 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
> >
>
>
Since we don't have a 'slave' branch, 'master' doesn't necessisarily have
that negative connotation. But rather than get into a complicated
discussion, how about a simple change, like calling it 'main' rather than
'master' and keeping the existing pattern for branches.

Alex