I propose “trunk” because that’s what it used to be called when we were using Subversion.
The issue with having a 3.x branch only matters if there is still another master/main/trunk/whatever branch. While we can easily set whatever branch to be the default branch, lacking a version-free branch may confuse people. > On Feb 8, 2023, at 10:57 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: > > Could you mind explaining your reasoning for keeping a `main` rather than > `3.x`? What does former offer that the latter falls short of? > > On Wed, 8 Feb 2023, 17:39 Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > >> I’ve said this previously. I am not in favor of having a 3.x branch until >> we need to start work on 4.x. master/main should be the main branch. It >> should become the default once 3.0-anything is released. >> >> Ralph >> >>> On Feb 8, 2023, at 8:45 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: >>> >>> There have already been discussions going on for some time, but nothing >>> concrete has been decided yet. Let's get this sorted out. >>> >>> I want to rename the branches as follows: >>> `master` -> `3.x` >>> `release-2.x` -> `2.x` >>> >>> I know Piotr is concerned about ordering in GitHub (that is, `3.x` should >>> appear at the top even though `2.x` is the default one), but I am not. >> For >>> one, this is not a concern for maintainers. Second, we can update README >> to >>> assist contributors. >>> >>> Thoughts? >> >>
