> Just like Debian has stable and testing, but the precise meaning of these > changes over time. > If your intention is to do the same thing as Debian, why not use the same names, too?
> On Jul 12, 2021, at 2:56 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> wrote: > > On 12 Jul 2021, at 13:36, Faré wrote: > > Would the "stable" branch be any different from the "release" branch? > If it's actually a not-so-stable development branch for 3.3 while a > separate branch contains development for 3.4, then maybe indeed > calling branches v3.3 and v3.4 make more sense. > > Yes, it would, because this branch would be where we put fixes to the > released branch while, on main, we develop code for 3.4. > > I was thinking of not calling the branch v3.3 because if we ever get past > 3.4, we would want a maintenance branch for 3.4, while main would be for 3.5 > or 4 depending on what the future holds. > > I have a mild preference for having the maintenance branch, whatever we call > it, just point to whatever has been released and is accumulating bug fixes. I > figured that having a stable would be like having a main, instead of renaming > main to whatever the upcoming version number is. Just like Debian has stable > and testing, but the precise meaning of these changes over time. > > I'm willing to be argued out of this, as I was argued out of dev in favor of > main, but I am not convinced by the arguments for v3.3 versus stable yet. > What makes us need v3.3 instead of stable if we don't need v3.4 instead of > main? > > —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• > http://fare.tunes.org <http://fare.tunes.org/> > The knowable universe is everything, as far as we can know. > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 2:13 PM Martin Simmons mar...@lispworks.com > <mailto:mar...@lispworks.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 19:52:01 +0200, Rudolf Schlatte said: > > Cancel-Lock: sha1:dqYu7Py9JNAyZJWALyW1kLx3PD8= > > "Robert Goldman" rpgold...@sift.info <mailto:rpgold...@sift.info> > writes: > > If stable seems bad, is there another name we could use to avoid renaming? > Like maint for "maintenance"? > > I don't love maint, because it's too close to main, and it seems like main > has an edge in familiarity if not in meaningfulness. > > legacy? > > Unless we can come up with something better than stable, it seems like the > least-worst alternative. But there's all week to come up with something > better! > > In the first email you said that the purpose of that branch was to > permit continuation of the 3.3 release series, so maybe call the branch > "v3.3"? That way, there can be multiple such branches without resorting > to "stable", "oldstable" etc. names. > > Yes, that's the kind of name I meant. > > Or include the stableness in the name with something like "stable/3.3" > (c.f. FreeBSD). > > -- > Martin Simmons > LispWorks Ltd > http://www.lispworks.com/ <http://www.lispworks.com/>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
