Having both master and 3.x is confusing IMO unless I missed something. For my money I'd keep it simple with either: - master and 2.x - 2.x and 3.x I don't care for the out of context presentism of main.
Gary On Wed, Feb 8, 2023, 10:59 Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: > Given we create a major release once a decade, I doubt if we need a `main`. > In 2043, we can fork `4.x` from `3.x`. > > Do you think there is a certain advantage of keeping `main` around? > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 4:51 PM Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Volkan, > > > > On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 at 16:44, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: > > > I want to rename the branches as follows: > > > `master` -> `3.x` > > > `release-2.x` -> `2.x` > > > > I am fine with both `3.x` and `main`. Some people have a problem with > > `master` and we don't have any problems with `main` or `3.x` so let's > > rename both branches in any case. > > > > If we are serious about releasing `3.0.0-alpha1`, we should also set > > `main` as default branch. > > > > Piotr > > >
