Rejiggering the branches

[phoebe Goldman]

> Just like Debian has stable and testing, but the precise meaning of these changes over time.
> 
If your intention is to do the same thing as Debian, why not use the same names, too?


> On Jul 12, 2021, at 2:56 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
> 
> 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 <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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/ <http://www.lispworks.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20210712/3a68ff82/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20210712/3a68ff82/attachment-0001.sig>