Re: Rename "master" branch to "main"?

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>]

On 1/14/21 4:42 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2021 15:56, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 1/14/21 12:54 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, Mike Frysinger via Libc-alpha wrote:
>>>> On 30 Jun 2020 14:10, Carlos O'Donell via Libc-alpha wrote:
>>>>> As we approach the release boundary for 2.32 we come to a natural point
>>>>> where we can rename our development and release branch.
>>>>>
>>>>> My proposal would be to rename the development and current release branch:
>>>>>
>>>>> * master -> main
>>>>
>>>> this seems to have stalled.  we should do this!
>>>
>>> Please see my previous comments.  Anyone making such a change needs to 
>>> review the git hooks, hook configuration (e.g. 
>>> refs/meta/config:project.config), hooks-bin scripts such as 
>>> email-to-bugzilla-filtered and post-receive, and wiki and other 
>>> documentation to identify *all* changes needed where master or branches 
>>> containing the string "master" are special-cased or otherwise mentioned.  
>>> The hooks and hook configuration updates need to be ready in advance of 
>>> such a change.
>>  
>> Correct.
>>
>> I am going to look into this in the next 6 months.
>>
>> The work needs to be done with someone who has access to sourceware to
>> make and review such changes in the scripts and merge the changes upstream
>> with the official AdaCore hooks.
> 
> it wasn't clear to me if we thought we had consensus on the issue which
> is why i wanted to kick the nest again.  it sounds like we do, so now
> we can start on the messy process of actually changing things.
> 
> it does sound like all of the things to do before we can roll it out
> are in the hooks.  if we can deploy a redirect, the docs don't have to
> be done right away, and it'll give us more flexibility with a "soft"
> release.
> 
> based on the tasks at hand, sounds like a wiki page would be best for
> keeping track of everything to do ?  i don't think bugzilla is good
> for checklists & adding/removing items, and creating multiple bugs
> feels more like overhead than useful time.

I agree. A wiki page checklist of things to check/review would be good.

Mostly I think it's just a lot of work and nobody has objected to someone
doing the work. It just has to be done well and with a high quality
solution, rather than something that is an abrupt change that requires
a lot of downstream fixing. Having said that, I don't know how to do
a redirect to keep old branches working (though I've seen it done in
Fedora when we wholesale moved from /foo to /rpms/foo).

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.