Hi Volkan,
On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 at 10:26, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>
> Deleted all branches prefixed with `scheduled-for-deletion/`.
That's great. This weekend I'll look to see if the two remaining
feature branches ( `parallel-tests` and `master-javadoc-fix` ) have
something valuable to contribute to
Deleted all branches prefixed with `scheduled-for-deletion/`.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 12:12 PM Volkan Yazıcı 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`
> `
Thanks!
> On Feb 27, 2023, at 5:12 AM, Volkan Yazıcı 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
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 reposi
+1 to renaming the legacy branches, too. While I don’t expect we’ll make any
more releases on them, the consistency would be nice.
> On Feb 9, 2023, at 4:44 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 11:11, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>>
>> I don't agree, but I want to wrap this discussio
On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 11:11, Volkan Yazıcı 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`
+1
Can you also rename the `release-2.3.x` and `release-2.12.x` branches
accordingly?
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
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
> 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 whatev
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
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
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/
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 discu
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
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 Yazı
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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
