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 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
> 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?
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
