Deleted all branches prefixed with `scheduled-for-deletion/`. On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 12:12 PM Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote:
> As we have agreed on, I have implemented the following branch renamings: > > `log4j-2.12` → `2.12.x` > `log4j-2.17.1-site` → `2.17.1-site` > `log4j-2.3.2-site` → `2.3.2-site` > `log4j-2.3.x` → `2.3.x` > `master` → `main` > `release-2.x` → `2.x` > > Please update the remote tracking branches in your personal repository > clones. > > I have created INFRA-24261 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24261> to set the default > GitHub branch to `2.x` – this is not possible via `.asf.yaml`. Along this > journey, I have also created INFRA-24260 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24260> to request > clarification on which `.asf.yaml` features are branch-dependent and which > are not. > > I have updated every match of the `(master|release-2.x)` regex in the > source code; CI scripts, website, etc. > > I have also done some spring cleaning. Deleted certain stale branches of > which I am certain they can be gone, and prefixed the rest with > `scheduled-for-deletion/`: > > `ckozak/stack_trace_jmh_benchmark` > `gelf-layout-efficiency` > `GenericMapMessage` > `log4j-2.12` > `LOG4J2-1390` > `log4j-2.17.1-site` > `LOG4J2-1949` > `log4j-2.3.2-site` > `log4j-2.3.x` > `LOG4J2-609` > `LOG4J2-930` > `Lucene5` > `new-iso-date-time-formats` > `release-2.12.x/LOG4J2-3242` > > I will delete all these branches next month, 2023-03-27. If you have any > objections, please raise them here. > > Last... I have deleted the `GenericMapMessageSimple` branch by mistake. > ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 11:12 AM Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: > >> I don't agree, but I want to wrap this discussion up. >> I will implement the following branch renaming: >> >> `master` -> `main` >> `release-2.x` -> `2.x` >> >> I will update the mentions of branch names in the source code; CI >> scripts, READMEs, `src/site`, etc. Is there anything else that needs to be >> updated? >> >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 7:25 PM Matt Sicker <m...@musigma.org> wrote: >> >>> I’m fine with using main, too, given that’s the current default name >>> used by git and most git hosts. >>> >>> > On Feb 8, 2023, at 12:10 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > It is common convention to use main or master so it is obvious that is >>> where the “current” work happens. Look at Apache Tomcat. They have many >>> release branches but the most current is always main. Spring works that >>> way too. Maven is similar. I am sure I could find many more projects that >>> do it that way. It is what people expect to find. Don’t give them something >>> unexpected. >>> > >>> > Ralph >>> > >>> > >>> >> On Feb 8, 2023, at 9:57 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Could you mind explaining your reasoning for keeping a `main` rather >>> than >>> >> `3.x`? What does former offer that the latter falls short of? >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023, 17:39 Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> I’ve said this previously. I am not in favor of having a 3.x branch >>> until >>> >>> we need to start work on 4.x. master/main should be the main branch. >>> It >>> >>> should become the default once 3.0-anything is released. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 8, 2023, at 8:45 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> There have already been discussions going on for some time, but >>> nothing >>> >>>> concrete has been decided yet. Let's get this sorted out. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I want to rename the branches as follows: >>> >>>> `master` -> `3.x` >>> >>>> `release-2.x` -> `2.x` >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I know Piotr is concerned about ordering in GitHub (that is, `3.x` >>> should >>> >>>> appear at the top even though `2.x` is the default one), but I am >>> not. >>> >>> For >>> >>>> one, this is not a concern for maintainers. Second, we can update >>> README >>> >>> to >>> >>>> assist contributors. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Thoughts? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>>
