toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I too agree with Jesse that in repos where you have `master` and `develop` branches, renaming `master` to `release` is more clear than using `main`.
For repos that have just a single trunk branch I have a slight personal preference for `latest`, as it mirrors the tag typically used to identify the latest build of a container image.
`main` also still has a connotation of being superior to the others (additional/auxiliary/supplemental/subordinate/???), which `latest` doesn't, imho.
"I've tested against the `latest` branch, and the issue is still reproducible" sounds descriptive to me.
Just using `develop` as the only branch could work too. E.g. UAA only uses `develop` and hasn't pushed to `master` since 2018, so you could just delete their `master` and nobody would notice... :)
I agree with Jesse. Renaming from `master` is a great idea which I strongly support. `main` is similar but more inclusive, but perhaps we can take the opportunity to increase the semantic meaning of the branch names.
on behalf of Jesse Alford <jalford@...>
Reply-To: "cf-dev@..." <cf-dev@...>
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 11:11 AM
To: "Discussions about Cloud Foundry projects and the system overall." <cf-dev@...>
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] Proposal to Rename the Primary Branch on all Cloud Foundry repos
Could we consider using `develop` (and/or, where appropriate, `release` and version-specific branches) instead?
In addition to being problematic, `master` is confusing, as it means different things in different processes.
`develop`/`release` makes it clear what branch you're supposed to push/merge to.
As an example, `cf-deployment` currently has `develop` and `master`, with `master` being effectively a release branch - all releases are ff-only merges tagged on `master` with a version number. `main` would be less clear
than `release` in this case - and, I suspect, in many others.
I am also in support of this change after enquiring on slack.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 23:06, Dieu Cao <dieuc@...
I believe some project teams independently have plans to invest in making this change.