On 12 Jul 2021, at 13:36, Faré wrote:

Would the "stable" branch be any different from the "release" branch?
If it's actually a not-so-stable development branch for 3.3 while a
separate branch contains development for 3.4, then maybe indeed
calling branches v3.3 and v3.4 make more sense.

Yes, it would, because this branch would be where we put fixes to the released branch while, on main, we develop code for 3.4.

I was thinking of not calling the branch v3.3 because if we ever get past 3.4, we would want a maintenance branch for 3.4, while main would be for 3.5 or 4 depending on what the future holds.

I have a mild preference for having the maintenance branch, whatever we call it, just point to whatever has been released and is accumulating bug fixes. I figured that having a stable would be like having a main, instead of renaming main to whatever the upcoming version number is. Just like Debian has stable and testing, but the precise meaning of these changes over time.

I'm willing to be argued out of this, as I was argued out of dev in favor of main, but I am not convinced by the arguments for v3.3 versus stable yet. What makes us need v3.3 instead of stable if we don't need v3.4 instead of main?

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
The knowable universe is everything, as far as we can know.

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 2:13 PM Martin Simmons martin@lispworks.com wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 19:52:01 +0200, Rudolf Schlatte said:

Cancel-Lock: sha1:dqYu7Py9JNAyZJWALyW1kLx3PD8=

"Robert Goldman" rpgoldman@sift.info
writes:

If stable seems bad, is there another name we could use to avoid renaming? Like maint for "maintenance"?

I don't love maint, because it's too close to main, and it seems like main has an edge in familiarity if not in meaningfulness.

legacy?

Unless we can come up with something better than stable, it seems like the least-worst alternative. But there's all week to come up with something better!

In the first email you said that the purpose of that branch was to
permit continuation of the 3.3 release series, so maybe call the branch
"v3.3"? That way, there can be multiple such branches without resorting
to "stable", "oldstable" etc. names.

Yes, that's the kind of name I meant.

Or include the stableness in the name with something like "stable/3.3"
(c.f. FreeBSD).

--
Martin Simmons
LispWorks Ltd
http://www.lispworks.com/