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.
—♯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/