Hi Jean, > Le 13 mars 2023 à 12:33, Privat, Jean <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> what would be the rational behind having a main branch as default instead a >> branch with the version we are working on? > > As with most naming issues in CS, this does not change a lot in the grand > order of things. > However, I believe that using a standard nomenclature could help newcomers > and casual developers. > >> I could consider start having branchs named, e.g. pharo12-dev, to >> differentiate it from the stable branch, but since that would mean to change >> a lot of tools that depend on the naming, it has to be considered careful > > pharo12-dev is great. > but since there is only main dev branch, maybe the `pharo12-` part is not > that useful. > but since it's a git repository, maybe use a conventional name for "the main > development branch" that is master or main.
In git, master / main branch does not mean it is the main or current development branch. It is just the default branch name of a new repository. It could be used as a development branch as well as an integration branch (e.g. gitflow). I would not use main for the current dev branch but rather pharoxx or pharoxx-dev. Christophe
