> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Derek Atkins <de...@ihtfp.com> > To: Geert Janssens <geert.gnuc...@kobaltwit.be> > Cc: gnucash-devel <gnucash-devel@gnucash.org> > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 11:26:02 -0500 > Subject: Re: [GNC-dev] Git branches > I have no objection to changing branch names. > > Just keep in mind that several build scripts depend on the branch names, > so if they change once, that's fine, but if they are constantly changing > (e.g. 4.x, 5.x, 4.99, 6.x, etc) then we may need to rework the scripts so > I don't have to coordinate with release-engineering when a new branch gets > created. (This dev-docs, etc). > > -derek > > On Mon, November 14, 2022 11:17 am, Geert Janssens 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 > > > > Since we don't have a 'slave' branch, 'master' doesn't necessisarily have that negative connotation. But rather than get into a complicated discussion, how about a simple change, like calling it 'main' rather than 'master' and keeping the existing pattern for branches.
Alex _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
