I’m fine with using main, too, given that’s the current default name used by git and most git hosts.
> On Feb 8, 2023, at 12:10 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > 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? >>> >>> >
