As we have agreed on, I have implemented the following branch renamings: `log4j-2.12` → `2.12.x` `log4j-2.17.1-site` → `2.17.1-site` `log4j-2.3.2-site` → `2.3.2-site` `log4j-2.3.x` → `2.3.x` `master` → `main` `release-2.x` → `2.x`
Please update the remote tracking branches in your personal repository clones. I have created INFRA-24261 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24261> to set the default GitHub branch to `2.x` – this is not possible via `.asf.yaml`. Along this journey, I have also created INFRA-24260 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24260> to request clarification on which `.asf.yaml` features are branch-dependent and which are not. I have updated every match of the `(master|release-2.x)` regex in the source code; CI scripts, website, etc. I have also done some spring cleaning. Deleted certain stale branches of which I am certain they can be gone, and prefixed the rest with `scheduled-for-deletion/`: `ckozak/stack_trace_jmh_benchmark` `gelf-layout-efficiency` `GenericMapMessage` `log4j-2.12` `LOG4J2-1390` `log4j-2.17.1-site` `LOG4J2-1949` `log4j-2.3.2-site` `log4j-2.3.x` `LOG4J2-609` `LOG4J2-930` `Lucene5` `new-iso-date-time-formats` `release-2.12.x/LOG4J2-3242` I will delete all these branches next month, 2023-03-27. If you have any objections, please raise them here. Last... I have deleted the `GenericMapMessageSimple` branch by mistake. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 11:12 AM Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: > I don't agree, but I want to wrap this discussion up. > I will implement the following branch renaming: > > `master` -> `main` > `release-2.x` -> `2.x` > > I will update the mentions of branch names in the source code; CI scripts, > READMEs, `src/site`, etc. Is there anything else that needs to be updated? > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 7:25 PM Matt Sicker <m...@musigma.org> wrote: > >> 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? >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> >>
