Rejiggering the branches

[Faré]

Would the "stable" branch be any different from the "release" branch?
If it's actually a not-so-stable development branch for 3.3 while a
separate branch contains development for 3.4, then maybe indeed
calling branches v3.3 and v3.4 make more sense.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
The knowable universe is everything, as far as we can know.

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 2:13 PM Martin Simmons <martin at lispworks.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 19:52:01 +0200, Rudolf Schlatte said:
> > Cancel-Lock: sha1:dqYu7Py9JNAyZJWALyW1kLx3PD8=
> >
> > "Robert Goldman" <rpgoldman at sift.info>
> > writes:
> >
> > > 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!
> > >
> >
> > In the first email you said that the purpose of that branch was to
> > permit continuation of the 3.3 release series, so maybe call the branch
> > "v3.3"?  That way, there can be multiple such branches without resorting
> > to "stable", "oldstable" etc. names.
>
> Yes, that's the kind of name I meant.
>
> Or include the stableness in the name with something like "stable/3.3"
> (c.f. FreeBSD).
>
> --
> Martin Simmons
> LispWorks Ltd
> http://www.lispworks.com/
>