Should devel be the default branch?

[Edward K. Ream]

On Saturday, July 11, 2020 at 3:52:46 PM UTC-5, Edward K. Ream wrote:

I just received and rejected PR #1615. This PR was to be applied to 6.0-final-rel. That's not how things work. We don't change official releases for any reason.

The author does not appear to have commit access, which is troubling.  However, the default branch is "master", not "devel", so perhaps that explains the situation.

It is possible to change the default, but changing it brings up a warning about unintended consequences.

I think the default branch really should be "devel", but I want to check with you all first.

Edward

[Félix]

Here's how most projects workflow are generally setup: 

My understanding is that people branch from a development 'head', generally not master, as the master branch is reserved for stable and verified commits that as a whole make a bundle to be published. Then, they ultimately finish their commits on their 'new-feature-x' branch... and pull request to be merged back into dev, or devel depending on the projects nomenclature. Called a 'development branch'.

Masters are reserved for published versions and are fine-tuned to be stable (usualy) by the project owner himself. 

Exception for small projects where features are added from branches of the master directly and no concept of intermediate level between a publicly shown 'master' branch and 'feature' branches.
--

Félix

[Félix]

Oh - But of course, when git cloning the project master should be default, not devel. 

(didnt even answer the question)

[Thomas Passin]

On Saturday, July 11, 2020 at 6:13:03 PM UTC-4, Félix wrote:

Oh - But of course, when git cloning the project master should be default, not devel. 

I agree - BUT with a caveat.  The usual advice is to clone the repo if we want to use the latest development version.   To that should be added "and switch to the 'devel'  branch. A person who is not used to using a repo will nearly always - I claim - start to use the main branch without realizing that anything else could or should be done.

[Félix]

I concur, and to recap, precisely, I gotta say that being on a stable 'master' branch after getting a repo with cloning is the norm. And that having to switch branch to be running a 'development' or "insider's" version is also common - which is also the branch from which to branch again out of, to add features.

[Edward K. Ream]

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 5:01 PM Félix <felix...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here's how most projects workflow are generally setup: 

My understanding is that people branch from a development 'head', generally not master, as the master branch is reserved for stable and verified commits that as a whole make a bundle to be published. Then, they ultimately finish their commits on their 'new-feature-x' branch... and pull request to be merged back into dev, or devel depending on the projects nomenclature. Called a 'development branch'.

Masters are reserved for published versions and are fine-tuned to be stable (usualy) by the project owner himself. 

That's exactly my understanding. See the diagram at the end of the first comment of #1058.

Edward

[Edward K. Ream]

On Saturday, July 11, 2020 at 4:40:56 PM UTC-5, Edward K. Ream wrote:

> I think the default branch really should be "devel", but I want to check with you all first.

Thanks for all your comments. I'll leave things as they are, with "master" being the default branch.

Edward

[jkn]

Just FYI, there is a discussion/tendency at the moment to think about changing the name of the branch usually known as 'master'.

This is around troubling historical connotations of master-slave relationships etc. Also see 'whitelist/blacklist' etc.

In the case of git the term 'master' really refers to an "original template, from which others are made" - like in stamping something out from a mould etc.

I don't see this as a troubling use but thought I'd mention how the winds are blowing...

    J^n

[Edward K. Ream]

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 2:53 AM jkn <jkn...@nicorp.f9.co.uk> wrote:

Just FYI, there is a discussion/tendency at the moment to think about changing the name of the branch usually known as 'master'.

Thanks for this. I think it's safe enough to retain the term for now, but I'm willing to change my mind.

I have a subscription to the Oxford English Dictionary. It lists 3 principal meanings:

1. Noun: A person or thing having control or authority.

   I.d: A component of a system which controls or regulates the operation of one or more of the system's other components.

II. A teacher; a person qualified to teach.

III. As a title of rank or compliment.

And many more. Within each division there are many sub-meanings.

2. Noun: A vessel having masts, esp. one with a specified number of masts, as in five-master, seven-master, etc.

3. Verb: To get the better of, to rule, and related senses.

Clearly, 1. applies. Within meaning one, there are many variants, many with connotations related to human relationships.

Furthermore, the OED contains dozens of related terms, such as master key and mastermind.

Edward