GNU bug report logs - #76407
[GCD] A better name for the default branch

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 76407 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#76407] [GCD] A better name for the default branch
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 23:07:02 +0100

Hello,

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com> 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’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.