Thanks very much for all the feedback. *As a conclusion, based on the above discussions, eagle community agree consistently to rename "develop" branch to "master" branch as the main development branch. The action will happen in one or two days.*
- Hao On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Liangfei.Su <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for master, trunk looks more legacy svn naming.. :) > > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Edward Zhang <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Today master branch is only used for mirroring latest stable release > branch > > because in the first impression, people will use master to build and run. > > > > To avoid too many breaks in master branch, Eagle community starts to use > > develop branch for bleeding development work. > > > > But that is redundant for mirroring latest stable release to master. > > > > So if we can use master as develop branch, that should be good as anyway > we > > should make master to be very stable. > > > > Vote master branch if that is common practice to use master as latest > > development work. > > > > Thanks > > Edward > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Henry Saputra <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 to move it to master. > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 moving to “trunk” or “master”. > > > > > > > > Regarding the name. These days more projects use the name “master” > > rather > > > > than “trunk”. (At least, that’s my impression. Hive, for instance, > used > > > > “trunk” when it was primarily svn, and switched to “master” now it’s > > > based > > > > on git.) But frankly either would be fine. > > > > > > > > Julian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Don Bosco Durai <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I also feel that moving development to “trunk” will be a good > thing. > > > > Right now, synchronizing the final release branch to the “trunk” > seems > > to > > > > be a redundant activity. In the release notes, we can always ask the > > > users > > > > to use the release branch and also when we create sub releases, they > > > would > > > > be off the previous release branch, so it would just work naturally. > > > > > > > > > > Bosco > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/7/16, 7:12 PM, "Michael Wu" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good to me, as long as it benefits the project. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Hao Chen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Currently we are faced a problem that we can't close the pull > > request > > > > from > > > > >> contributors automatically. > > > > >> > > > > >> When a pull request is merged in develop branch, github could not > > > close > > > > the > > > > >> pull request automatically and committers don't have permission to > > > close > > > > >> the pull request manually on github page, so that we have to ask > the > > > > >> contributor to close the branch manually otherwise there would be > > lots > > > > of > > > > >> "OPEN" pull requests listed though most are merged. > > > > >> > > > > >> Learning from github service: > > > > >> > > > > >> " > > > > >> To close this pull request, make a commit to your *master/trunk > > > *branch > > > > >> with (at least) the following in the commit message: > > > > >> > > > > >> This closes #305 > > > > >> " > > > > >> > > > > >> Commits with *"Closes #PULL-REQUEST-ID"* will only work on > > > > master/trunk, in > > > > >> fact *trunk* branch should be our *develo *in purpose and would be > > > > better > > > > >> for management. > > > > >> > > > > >> Any comments are appreciated. > > > > >> > > > > >> - Hao > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
