<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="" style="font-family: sans-serif;"><div class=""><p dir="auto" class="">Just like Debian has <code bgcolor="#F7F7F7" class="" style="background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); border-top-left-radius: 3px; border-top-right-radius: 3px; border-bottom-right-radius: 3px; border-bottom-left-radius: 3px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0.4em;">stable</code> and <code bgcolor="#F7F7F7" class="" style="background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); border-top-left-radius: 3px; border-top-right-radius: 3px; border-bottom-right-radius: 3px; border-bottom-left-radius: 3px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0.4em;">testing</code>, but the precise meaning of these changes over time.</p></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><div class=""><div class="" style="font-family: sans-serif;"><div class=""><p dir="auto" class="">If your intention is to do the same thing as Debian, why not use the same names, too?</p></div></div></div></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 12, 2021, at 2:56 PM, Robert Goldman <<a href="mailto:rpgoldman@sift.info" class="">rpgoldman@sift.info</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/xhtml; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div class="">
<div style="font-family:sans-serif" class=""><div style="white-space:normal" class=""><p dir="auto" class="">On 12 Jul 2021, at 13:36, Faré wrote:</p>
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#777; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px" class=""><p dir="auto" class="">Would the "stable" branch be any different from the "release" branch?<br class="">
If it's actually a not-so-stable development branch for 3.3 while a<br class="">
separate branch contains development for 3.4, then maybe indeed<br class="">
calling branches v3.3 and v3.4 make more sense.</p>
</blockquote><p dir="auto" class="">Yes, it would, because this branch would be where we put fixes to the released branch while, on <code style="background-color:#F7F7F7; border-radius:3px; margin:0; padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7" class="">main</code>, we develop code for 3.4.</p><p dir="auto" class="">I was thinking of not calling the branch <code style="background-color:#F7F7F7; border-radius:3px; margin:0; padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7" class="">v3.3</code> because if we ever get past 3.4, we would want a maintenance branch for 3.4, while <code style="background-color:#F7F7F7; border-radius:3px; margin:0; padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7" class="">main</code> would be for 3.5 or 4 depending on what the future holds.</p><p dir="auto" class="">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 <code style="background-color:#F7F7F7; border-radius:3px; margin:0; padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7" class="">stable</code> would be like having a <code style="background-color:#F7F7F7; border-radius:3px; margin:0; padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7" class="">main</code>, instead of renaming <code style="background-color:#F7F7F7; border-radius:3px; margin:0; padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7" class="">main</code> to whatever the upcoming version number is. Just like Debian has <code style="background-color:#F7F7F7; border-radius:3px; margin:0; padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7" class="">stable</code> and <code style="background-color:#F7F7F7; border-radius:3px; margin:0; padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7" class="">testing</code>, but the precise meaning of these changes over time.</p><p dir="auto" class="">I'm willing to be argued out of this, as I was argued out of <code style="background-color:#F7F7F7; border-radius:3px; margin:0; padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7" class="">dev</code> in favor of <code style="background-color:#F7F7F7; border-radius:3px; margin:0; padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7" class="">main</code>, but I am not convinced by the arguments for <code style="background-color:#F7F7F7; border-radius:3px; margin:0; padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7" class="">v3.3</code> versus <code style="background-color:#F7F7F7; border-radius:3px; margin:0; padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7" class="">stable</code> yet. What makes us need <code style="background-color:#F7F7F7; border-radius:3px; margin:0; padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7" class="">v3.3</code> instead of stable if we don't need <code style="background-color:#F7F7F7; border-radius:3px; margin:0; padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7" class="">v3.4</code> instead of <code style="background-color:#F7F7F7; border-radius:3px; margin:0; padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7" class="">main</code>?</p>
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#777; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px" class=""><p dir="auto" class="">—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• <a href="http://fare.tunes.org/" style="color:#777" class="">http://fare.tunes.org</a><br class="">
The knowable universe is everything, as far as we can know.</p><p dir="auto" class="">On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 2:13 PM Martin Simmons <a href="mailto:martin@lispworks.com" style="color:#777" class="">martin@lispworks.com</a> wrote:</p>
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#999; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px; border-left-color:#999" class="">
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#BBB; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px; border-left-color:#BBB" class="">
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#BBB; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px; border-left-color:#BBB" class="">
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#BBB; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px; border-left-color:#BBB" class="">
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#BBB; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px; border-left-color:#BBB" class="">
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#BBB; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px; border-left-color:#BBB" class=""><p dir="auto" class="">On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 19:52:01 +0200, Rudolf Schlatte said:</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote><p dir="auto" class="">Cancel-Lock: sha1:dqYu7Py9JNAyZJWALyW1kLx3PD8=</p><p dir="auto" class="">"Robert Goldman" <a href="mailto:rpgoldman@sift.info" style="color:#BBB" class="">rpgoldman@sift.info</a><br class="">
writes:</p>
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#BBB; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px; border-left-color:#BBB" class=""><p dir="auto" class="">If stable seems bad, is there another name we could use to avoid renaming? Like maint for "maintenance"?</p><p dir="auto" class="">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.</p><p dir="auto" class="">legacy?</p><p dir="auto" class="">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!</p>
</blockquote><p dir="auto" class="">In the first email you said that the purpose of that branch was to<br class="">
permit continuation of the 3.3 release series, so maybe call the branch<br class="">
"v3.3"? That way, there can be multiple such branches without resorting<br class="">
to "stable", "oldstable" etc. names.</p>
</blockquote><p dir="auto" class="">Yes, that's the kind of name I meant.</p><p dir="auto" class="">Or include the stableness in the name with something like "stable/3.3"<br class="">
(c.f. FreeBSD).</p><p dir="auto" class="">--<br class="">
Martin Simmons<br class="">
LispWorks Ltd<br class="">
<a href="http://www.lispworks.com/" style="color:#999" class="">http://www.lispworks.com/</a></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>