On 13 Jul 2021, at 10:20, Eric Timmons wrote:
Attila Lendvai attila.lendvai@gmail.com writes:
what i would do:
- one branch that holds the bleeding edge. i'd call it main, just
to go with the flow.
- branches for ASDF versions (down to the desired resolution,
probably major.minor), so that you can easily cherry pick or backport fixes into them. a new version-branch is forked off of main whenever a release happens.
- optionally a stable *tag* as an indirection to the latest
release. it communicates which specific git revision is it that the maintainer considers the stable state at any moment in time. it comes handy e.g. in CI scripts that want to check out the latest ASDF release, etc...
I like this!
IMO a big win of having the major and minor number in the branch name is that it's a better experience for users. If it's a single `maintenance` branch then a git pull may wind up changing their version completely. If they have any local changes as well, things might get a bit hairy when `maintenance` changes minor versions as that wouldn't be a fast-forward update.
I guess I'm surprised you say this. I don't *ever* want us to have more than a single live maintenance branch. I absolutely *never* want to support more than a single `main` version and a single `stable` version.
So, to me, it's a *feature* that if you git pull maintenance and you find out that what you are maintaining has changed. And to me it seems like a *bad* user experience if I can end up wasting my time interacting with a branch that is obsolete and of no further interest. I'd rather know that things have changed -- and I would expect to do `git pull --ff-only` on `stable`.
I am surprised that so many people want to have a branch like `v3.3`. This adds a memory burden that `stable` doesn't have, in the same way that Raymond pointed out that having `dev` adds a memory burden beyond using the standard `main` or `master`. Honestly, I find it hard to remember whether 3.3 or 3.4 is the current released version!
I'm curious -- how many of the people who want `v3.3` instead of `stable` expect that they would actually interact with this branch, checking it out and supplying merge requests, versus just thinking it's better in some ideal fashion?