From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from vmicros1.altlinux.org (vmicros1.altlinux.org [194.107.17.57]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F1583858D35 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 00:59:22 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6F1583858D35 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=altlinux.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=altlinux.org Received: from mua.local.altlinux.org (mua.local.altlinux.org [192.168.1.14]) by vmicros1.altlinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E11072C8FA; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 03:59:21 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mua.local.altlinux.org (Postfix, from userid 508) id 563147CCAA8; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 03:59:21 +0300 (MSK) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 03:59:21 +0300 From: "Dmitry V. Levin" To: Carlos O'Donell Cc: Florian Weimer , Jakub Jelinek , libc-alpha , Andreas Schwab , Joseph Myers , Maxim Kuvyrkov Subject: Re: Rename "master" branch to "main" for glibc 2.35 release. Message-ID: <20220201005921.GA24624@altlinux.org> References: <77c04408-2508-350e-2f8e-db070e8d35f6@redhat.com> <87mtjc843p.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 00:59:24 -0000 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