Maybe I'm a bit naive, but what about a setup like:

main - development happens against this as PRs and so on

When you do a release, tag it against this branch.

For the topic of people staying on 3.3 or whatever version they prefer: if such a situation were to actually happen, that they submit a fix that specifically patches a bug in 3.3, you can create a hotfix branch rooted at that tagged version.
Meaning, don't create a branch until you need one.

The risk of course is having greatly diverging features added to some older version, but I'd like to hope that after however many decades, ASDF is at least mature enough that something like that wouldn't happen and only hotfixes would be applied to those release branches, if any at all.

Finally, if you truly desire a 'stable' equivalent (releases only), simply move development from 'main' to 'dev', and only fast forward 'main' to 'dev' when a stable release happens.

eg

dev - development branch, changes voa prs, patches, etc 

main - stable releases branch. fast forwarded to (or merge-commited) 'dev' when a release occurs.

tag every release. If somebody in the future finds a hotfix in some old version, create a branch at that tag.


But that's just my two cents. Best of luck

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 4:35 PM Robert Goldman <rpgoldman@sift.info> wrote:

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?