Thanks!
> On Feb 27, 2023, at 5:12 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote:
>
> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
