[GNC-dev] Git branches

[Alex Aycinena]

'Stable' seems weird because it is where all the big changes will go in the
future. How about 'Primary' for what is now 'Master' and then you change
'Maint' as you suggest?

Alex

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 7:18 PM Brian Rater <blrnh94 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Future?
>
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 8:57 PM John Ralls <jralls at 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 <jralls at 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.gnucash at 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.aycinena at 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 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnucash-devel mailing list
>> gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
>> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
>>
>