Re: [GNC-dev] Git branches

Not that my opinion carries much weight on this, but "current-release" and "next-release" might be a reasonable set of options that are less wordy but still clear?
⁣
David T.​

On Nov 14, 2022, 19:17, at 19:17, Geert Janssens <[email protected]> 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
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>gnucash-devel mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel