Not that my opinion carries much weight on this, but "current-release" and "next-release" might be a reasonable set of options that are less wordy but still clear? David T.
On Nov 14, 2022, 19:17, at 19:17, Geert Janssens <geert.gnuc...@kobaltwit.be> wrote: >This had been brewing in my mind as well, so thanks for bringing this >up. > >When I considered alternative branch names I initially thought of >"stable" vs "development" >or "devel" with an optional "unstable" at times of pre-releases. > >However when thinking this through some more I started wondering >whether we really >should limit ourselves to just two (or three) branch names. > >We could also name our branches "4.x", "5.x" and so on to indicate the >release series this >branch is for. At some point we just stop using the older branches. We >can choose to drop >them or just leave them in the git history as it suits is best. > >Both naming schemes have advantages and drawbacks. I like the direct >relationship >between branch name and releases that will be on it for the latter >scheme. Although I admit >this relationship doesn't hold for the pre-releases, unless we make >that a separate branch for >those like eg "4.9xx". > >Regards, > >Geert > >Op zondag 13 november 2022 21:40:14 CET schreef john: >> Since Geert brought up our relationship with Github I thought it >timely to >> start a discussion about a related trend: The name of the git >repository's >> primary branches. There's an ongoing effort in the software >development >> community for the last 25-30 years or so to remove the terms master >and >> slave; originally when used together (as in processes) but more >recently >> when used alone. This recently includes the name of the primary >branch in a >> git repository. The Gitlab folks have a nice summary at >> >https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2021/03/10/new-git-default-branch-name/. >> >> 'Master' was the standard when we started using git 10 years ago and >so we >> adopted it and still use it. Aside from the cultural sensitivity >issues >> (primarily in the United States because of our unfortunate history >with >> forced importation and enslavement of Africans) it has proved to be a >bit >> confusing to new contributors. >> >> The new standard default is 'main'. I think that would be fine for >htdocs >> where we have master and beta: Main would better express that that's >the >> branch that you see when you visit https://www.gnucash.org >> <https://www.gnucash.org/>. The gnucash-on-foo repositories for the >build >> processes have only master branches so it doesn't really matter what >the >> branch is called. >> >> I don't think 'main' is the right name for gnucash or gnucash-docs >because >> it does nothing about the confusion factor. Note that the default >branch on >> those two is maint but we still use master for the next major >release's >> branch. The most expressive titles would be current-major-release and >> next-major-release but they're a bit wordy; OTOH just current (or >curr) and >> next leave a new contributor to ask current and next what? maint is >concise >> and not terrible for a branch that gets only bug fixes and small >features. >> Lots of generic names for the next-major-release branch (future, >devel or >> development, major-change) come to mind but I'm not sure that any of >them >> clearly express the intent of the branch. >> >> Comments? >> >> Regards, >> John Ralls >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gnucash-devel mailing list >> gnucash-devel@gnucash.org >> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel > > >_______________________________________________ >gnucash-devel mailing list >gnucash-devel@gnucash.org >https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel