I'm fine with just doing the simple name change for our two primary branches as
it's the
option of least effort.
I'd rather have a different name than "main" though. It's a bit ambiguous and
like "master"
suggesting this branch is somehow more important than the other long-term
branch
"maint". I'd rather have names that help guide contributors to the right branch
to work from.
I don't think there's a silver bullet here though, but some names may give more
of a hint
than others. Some suggestions:
* "current" vs "future" as shorthands for "current-release-series" or
"future-release-series"
* "maintenance" ("maint") vs "development" ("devel")
* "stable" vs "development"
That said, I'm also very interested in the single branch model as alternative.
Discussion on
that is for another message.
Regards,
Geert
Op maandag 14 november 2022 20:59:26 CET schreef john:
> > On Nov 14, 2022, at 11:11 AM, Alex Aycinena <alex.aycin...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > how about a simple change, like calling it 'main' rather than
> > 'master' and keeping the existing pattern for branches.
>
> That would be OK as long as long as the two names aren't similar. main and
> stable would be OK; with main and maint one is far too likely to do
> something to the wrong branch.
>
> 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
