Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming default git branch to 'prerelease'

[Jon Malkin <jo...@gmail.com>]

We have not yet done this. I was hoping for a little discussion on the new
default branch name first.

I'm fine with either "trunk" or "main" for our repos. Both seem ok. My idea
was that we could attempt to reinforce the notion that pulling from the
default branch means you're using unreleased code, which I believe ASF
frowns upon, by calling it the "prerelease" branch.

But I don't know for sure if that would help overall or if it's more likely
to confuse people from outside the project instead.

  jon




On Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 8:52 PM Kenneth Knowles <ke...@apache.org> wrote:

> Did this happen? I've seen "trunk" (per SVN and tree metaphor) and "main"
> suggested.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:16 PM Furkan KAMACI <fu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I follow the conversation at members@a.o. too.
>>
>> I'm +1 for it.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Furkan KAMACI
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:02 PM leerho <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am in favor of this proposal.
>>>
>>> It is easy to change the branch name from git, but I am not aware of
>>> what possible technical difficulties there might be outside of GitHub in
>>> making this change.  The use of "master" is so wide-spread that there may
>>> be automated or semi-automated systems that may assume, by default, that
>>> the branch to pull from is "master" and these might require
>>> reconfiguration.
>>>
>>> Lee.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:01 AM Jon Malkin <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In recent days, and in response to current events outside the tech
>>>> world, some tech companies have taken to revisiting terminology. It's not
>>>> something particularly new; there was an IETF draft proposal around the
>>>> topic from late 2018:
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html
>>>>
>>>> One lesson I've taken away from this effort is that changing the
>>>> default/legacy naming schemes can often help improve naming clarity.
>>>> ArsTechnica noted this in their write-up of the changes to ZFS, noting how
>>>> 3 different projects moved away from 'master/slave' terminology in 3
>>>> different ways, each providing a more accurate description of the
>>>> underlying relationship for the use case.
>>>>
>>>> With that in mind, and recalling that Apache's policies are that we
>>>> should recommend people grab our official releases, I'm proposing we change
>>>> our default branch to be named 'prerelease'. This will help make it clear
>>>> to anyone cloning our repos that they are using code that has not yet been
>>>> released.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts? Votes in favor/opposed?
>>>>
>>>>   jon
>>>>
>>>