We could pinch from Debian and use stable, testing, and unstable, where testing
is the alpha/beta pre-major-release weeklies.
Regards,
John Ralls
> On Nov 18, 2022, at 7:55 AM, Geert Janssens <geert.gnuc...@kobaltwit.be>
> wrote:
>
> 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
