Rejiggering the branches

[Robert Goldman]

On 12 Jul 2021, at 13:36, Faré wrote:

> 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.

Yes, it would, because this branch would be where we put fixes to the 
released branch while, on `main`, we develop code for 3.4.

I was thinking of not calling the branch `v3.3` because if we ever get 
past 3.4, we would want a maintenance branch for 3.4, while `main` would 
be for 3.5 or 4 depending on what the future holds.

I have a mild preference for having the maintenance branch, whatever we 
call it, just point to whatever has been released and is accumulating 
bug fixes.  I figured that having a `stable` would be like having a 
`main`, instead of renaming `main` to whatever the upcoming version 
number is.  Just like Debian has `stable` and `testing`, but the precise 
meaning of these changes over time.

I'm willing to be argued out of this, as I was argued out of `dev` in 
favor of `main`, but I am not convinced by the arguments for `v3.3` 
versus `stable` yet.  What makes us need `v3.3` instead of stable if we 
don't need `v3.4` instead of `main`?
>
> —♯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/
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20210712/30a773e3/attachment.html>