[Log4j] Branch naming
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?
Re: [Log4j] Branch naming
Hi Volkan, On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 at 16:44, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > I want to rename the branches as follows: > `master` -> `3.x` > `release-2.x` -> `2.x` I am fine with both `3.x` and `main`. Some people have a problem with `master` and we don't have any problems with `main` or `3.x` so let's rename both branches in any case. If we are serious about releasing `3.0.0-alpha1`, we should also set `main` as default branch. Piotr
Re: [Log4j] Branch naming
Given we create a major release once a decade, I doubt if we need a `main`. In 2043, we can fork `4.x` from `3.x`. Do you think there is a certain advantage of keeping `main` around? On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 4:51 PM Piotr P. Karwasz wrote: > Hi Volkan, > > On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 at 16:44, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > > I want to rename the branches as follows: > > `master` -> `3.x` > > `release-2.x` -> `2.x` > > I am fine with both `3.x` and `main`. Some people have a problem with > `master` and we don't have any problems with `main` or `3.x` so let's > rename both branches in any case. > > If we are serious about releasing `3.0.0-alpha1`, we should also set > `main` as default branch. > > Piotr >
Re: [Log4j] Branch naming
Having both master and 3.x is confusing IMO unless I missed something. For my money I'd keep it simple with either: - master and 2.x - 2.x and 3.x I don't care for the out of context presentism of main. Gary On Wed, Feb 8, 2023, 10:59 Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > Given we create a major release once a decade, I doubt if we need a `main`. > In 2043, we can fork `4.x` from `3.x`. > > Do you think there is a certain advantage of keeping `main` around? > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 4:51 PM Piotr P. Karwasz > wrote: > > > Hi Volkan, > > > > On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 at 16:44, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > > > I want to rename the branches as follows: > > > `master` -> `3.x` > > > `release-2.x` -> `2.x` > > > > I am fine with both `3.x` and `main`. Some people have a problem with > > `master` and we don't have any problems with `main` or `3.x` so let's > > rename both branches in any case. > > > > If we are serious about releasing `3.0.0-alpha1`, we should also set > > `main` as default branch. > > > > Piotr > > >
Re: [Log4j] Branch naming
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 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?
Re: [Log4j] Branch naming
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 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 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? > >
Re: [Log4j] Branch naming
I propose “trunk” because that’s what it used to be called when we were using Subversion. The issue with having a 3.x branch only matters if there is still another master/main/trunk/whatever branch. While we can easily set whatever branch to be the default branch, lacking a version-free branch may confuse people. > On Feb 8, 2023, at 10:57 AM, Volkan Yazıcı 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 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 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? >> >>
Re: [Log4j] Branch naming
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 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 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 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? >> >>
Re: [Log4j] Branch naming
> On Feb 8, 2023, at 11:06 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: > > I propose “trunk” because that’s what it used to be called when we were using > Subversion. > > The issue with having a 3.x branch only matters if there is still another > master/main/trunk/whatever branch. While we can easily set whatever branch to > be the default branch, lacking a version-free branch may confuse people. +1 to the last sentence. Ralph
Re: [Log4j] Branch naming
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 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 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 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 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? >>> >>> >
