It is common convention to use main or master so it is obvious that is where the “current” work happens. Look at Apache Tomcat. They have many release branches but the most current is always main. Spring works that way too. Maven is similar. I am sure I could find many more projects that do it that way. It is what people expect to find. Don’t give them something unexpected.
Ralph > On Feb 8, 2023, at 9:57 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? >> >>
