Re: Rename "master" branch to "main" for glibc 2.35 release.

["Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>]

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 09:55:26AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell via Libc-alpha wrote:
> On 1/31/22 07:46, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Carlos O'Donell:
> > 
> >> My proposal is to rename the development and release branches at the point
> >> that glibc 2.35 branches:
> >>
> >> * master -> main
> >>
> >> * release/2.35/master -> release/2.35/main
> >>
> >> No alias would be provided for the master branch; we would immediately
> >> start using 'main' as the development branch.
> > 
> > What is the reason for using ”main” for release branches?
> 
> There is no strong justification for using 'main' for release branches.
> 
> It is a continuation of the existing format of branch names, and so would
> require only a search and replace in your script.
>  
> > If we don't add a symbolic ref, we could use release/2.35.
> 
> Andreas points out that release/2.35 and release/2.35/main cannot coexist
> so that would mean we would need to make a choice about which to use and
> stick with that choice:
> 
> * master -> main
> * release/2.35/master -> release/2.35
> 
> We could not then go back and have:
> 
> * release/2.35/main
> * release/2.35/foo
> * release/2.35/bar
> 
> If we ever wanted alternative non-main branches for glibc 2.35?

There haven't been any branches with "release/" prefix besides
"release/2.??/master" yet, so what's the reason to expect them appear
in case of glibc 2.35?

Are you talking about a theoretical possibility of creating an
alternative branch name with "release/2.35/" prefix some day in the
future, or is it something more practical?


-- 
ldv