Subject: Re: bug#76407: [GCD] A better name for the default branch

From: Ludovic Courtès <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 23:07:02 +0100

Hello,

Liliana Marie Prikler <[email-masked]> skribis:

> Actually, the GCD does specify this:

Oh right, sorry.

>> Even after the `master` branch no longer syncs up to main, it may be
>> important to still have it pointing at some commit.  Old installation
>> media, handcrafted `channels.scm`, external documentation and scripts
>> may all still be referring to the `master` branch even long after the
>> rename (see also Cost of Reverting below).  To ensure that these do
>> not fail immediately, the old branch shall not be deleted until
>> 
>> 1. at least one year has passed since this GCD has been accepted, AND
>> 2. enough Guix releases have been made in the meantime, meaning
>>    a. at least one major release, OR
>>    b. at least three minor releases.

Perfect!  Since the notion of major/minor release is fuzzy in Guix, I’d
suggest something like:

  2. two or more releases were made in the meantime.

>> > +## Choice of branch name
>> 
>> I’m not convinced this section is necessary.  :-)
> How do we achieve consensus on the proposed name itself, then?

‘main’ is an established and non-controversial name in this context,
which is why I thought we could omit the section.  It’s no big deal
though, we can keep it too.

>> I don’t think this has to be simultaneous: both changes bring the
>> potential for breakage if we’re not careful enough, but it’s probably
>> best to deal with a single class of breakage at a time.
> Perhaps I am missing something crucial here, but IIUC most breakages
> would result from the same record; with just one field between them. 
> Since most configuration ends up being "fire and forget", reducing the
> number of times they need to be edited sounds like a benefit to me.

Hmm yes, maybe you’re right.  The wording says “possibly simultaneous
change” so that leaves room.

Thanks,
Ludo’.