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
Op zondag 13 november 2022 20:08:15 CET schreef john:
> > On Nov 13, 2022, at 6:28 AM, Geert Janssens
> > wrote:
> >
> > How recent then can "more recent" be ? In my mind anything that's in the
> > most recent LTS, should be fine in all cases. For anything more recent
> > than that, we should con
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
> wrote:
>
> I'm fine with just doing the simple name change for our two primary branches
> as it's
That's a good analysis of the situation.
I agree this is largely a legal issue to be solved by organisations like the
SFC.
At a deeper level though I agree this could only have happened because OSS has
allowed
github to become such a golden cage for our projects in the first place. And
this s
I don't think the silo effect is a big deal. The main impact is on transferring
bugs and we gave that up when Gnome shut down its Bugzilla instance.
Cross-project pull/merge requests make no sense, so I guess your complaint is
that you can't use your Github account to submit a PR to e.g. Gtk bec
