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

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

On 1/31/22 19:59, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> 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?

No, just the theoretical possibility.

I have no objection to just a bare release/2.35 as the branch name.

I guess that's certainly a step we could take e.g. name the release
branch release/2.35 (omitting "master").

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.