<div dir="auto">Maybe I'm a bit naive, but what about a setup like:<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">main - development happens against this as PRs and so on</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">When you do a release, tag it against this branch.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">For the topic of people staying on 3.3 or whatever version they prefer: if such a situation were to actually happen, that they submit a fix that specifically patches a bug in 3.3, you can create a hotfix branch rooted at that tagged version.</div><div dir="auto">Meaning, don't create a branch until you need one.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The risk of course is having greatly diverging features added to some older version, but I'd like to hope that after however many decades, ASDF is at least mature enough that something like that wouldn't happen and only hotfixes would be applied to those release branches, if any at all.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Finally, if you truly desire a 'stable' equivalent (releases only), simply move development from 'main' to 'dev', and only fast forward 'main' to 'dev' when a stable release happens.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">eg</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">dev - development branch, changes voa prs, patches, etc </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">main - stable releases branch. fast forwarded to (or merge-commited) 'dev' when a release occurs.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">tag every release. If somebody in the future finds a hotfix in some old version, create a branch at that tag.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But that's just my two cents. Best of luck</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 4:35 PM Robert Goldman <<a href="mailto:rpgoldman@sift.info">rpgoldman@sift.info</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<div style="font-family:sans-serif"><div style="white-space:normal">
<p dir="auto">On 13 Jul 2021, at 10:20, Eric Timmons wrote:</p>
</div>
<div style="white-space:normal"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777;color:#777;margin:0 0 5px;padding-left:5px"><p dir="auto">Attila Lendvai <<a href="mailto:attila.lendvai@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">attila.lendvai@gmail.com</a>> writes:</p>
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777;color:#999;margin:0 0 5px;padding-left:5px;border-left-color:#999"><p dir="auto">what i would do:<br>
<br>
- one branch that holds the bleeding edge. i'd call it main, just to go<br>
with the flow.<br>
- branches for ASDF versions (down to the desired resolution, probably<br>
major.minor), so that you can easily cherry pick or backport fixes into<br>
them. a new version-branch is forked off of main whenever a release happens.<br>
- optionally a stable *tag* as an indirection to the latest release. it<br>
communicates which specific git revision is it that the maintainer<br>
considers the stable state at any moment in time. it comes handy e.g. in CI<br>
scripts that want to check out the latest ASDF release, etc...<br>
</p>
</blockquote><p dir="auto">I like this!<br>
<br>
IMO a big win of having the major and minor number in the branch name is<br>
that it's a better experience for users. If it's a single `maintenance`<br>
branch then a git pull may wind up changing their version completely. If<br>
they have any local changes as well, things might get a bit hairy when<br>
`maintenance` changes minor versions as that wouldn't be a fast-forward<br>
update.</p>
</blockquote></div>
<div style="white-space:normal">
<p dir="auto">I guess I'm surprised you say this. I don't <em>ever</em> want us to have more than a single live maintenance branch. I absolutely <em>never</em> want to support more than a single <code style="background-color:#f7f7f7;border-radius:3px;margin:0;padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7">main</code> version and a single <code style="background-color:#f7f7f7;border-radius:3px;margin:0;padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7">stable</code> version.</p>
<p dir="auto">So, to me, it's a <em>feature</em> that if you git pull maintenance and you find out that what you are maintaining has changed. And to me it seems like a <em>bad</em> user experience if I can end up wasting my time interacting with a branch that is obsolete and of no further interest. I'd rather know that things have changed -- and I would expect to do <code style="background-color:#f7f7f7;border-radius:3px;margin:0;padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7">git pull --ff-only</code> on <code style="background-color:#f7f7f7;border-radius:3px;margin:0;padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7">stable</code>.</p>
<p dir="auto">I am surprised that so many people want to have a branch like <code style="background-color:#f7f7f7;border-radius:3px;margin:0;padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7">v3.3</code>. This adds a memory burden that <code style="background-color:#f7f7f7;border-radius:3px;margin:0;padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7">stable</code> doesn't have, in the same way that Raymond pointed out that having <code style="background-color:#f7f7f7;border-radius:3px;margin:0;padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7">dev</code> adds a memory burden beyond using the standard <code style="background-color:#f7f7f7;border-radius:3px;margin:0;padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7">main</code> or <code style="background-color:#f7f7f7;border-radius:3px;margin:0;padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7">master</code>. Honestly, I find it hard to remember whether 3.3 or 3.4 is the current released version!</p>
<p dir="auto">I'm curious -- how many of the people who want <code style="background-color:#f7f7f7;border-radius:3px;margin:0;padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7">v3.3</code> instead of <code style="background-color:#f7f7f7;border-radius:3px;margin:0;padding:0 0.4em" bgcolor="#F7F7F7">stable</code> expect that they would actually interact with this branch, checking it out and supplying merge requests, versus just thinking it's better in some ideal fashion?</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>