[GNC-dev] Git branches

[Chris Graves]

Or perhaps, cur(rent) and next.

> On Mar 24, 2023, at 7:54 AM, Alex Aycinena <alex.aycinena at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> '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
>>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-devel mailing list
> gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel