Rejiggering the branches

[Robert Goldman]

If `stable` seems bad, is there another name we could use to avoid 
renaming?  Like `maint` for "maintenance"?

I don't love `maint`, because it's too close to `main`, and it seems 
like `main` has an edge in familiarity if not in meaningfulness.

`legacy`?

Unless we can come up with something better than `stable`, it seems like 
the least-worst alternative.  But there's all week to come up with 
something better!

Cheers,
R


On 12 Jul 2021, at 11:13, Martin Simmons wrote:

>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 08:59:16 -0500, Robert Goldman said:
>>
>> As we move forward, and try to add some new facilities to ASDF, this
>> seems like a good time to revise the branching structure that we use.
>>
>> In particular, I would like to add a `stable` branch that will permit
>> continuation of the 3.3 release series, the need for which is
>> illustrated by Mark E's recent merge request.
>
> OK, but once you name something "stable", can you change it very much? 
>  What
> happens when the development branch contains something that is stable 
> enough
> to call stable again?  If you intend this branch to be the 3.3 release 
> series
> then using numbers in the name might be preferable.
>
>
>> If we are going to make that change, it seems like a good time to 
>> rename
>> the `master` branch to either `main` or `dev`.  Any preferences?
>
> I suggest calling it main like many other projects, unless you intend 
> to do
> all development on a non-default branch and use main for something 
> else.
> Using the same name as other projects makes it easier to find it.
>
> -- 
> Martin Simmons
> LispWorks Ltd
> http://www.lispworks.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20210712/dc72d574/attachment-0001.html>