<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 5:14 PM antlists <<a href="mailto:antlists@youngman.org.uk">antlists@youngman.org.uk</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 20/06/2020 01:00, Mehdi AMINI wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:55 PM antlists via llvm-dev <br>
> <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> On 19/06/2020 20:43, Matt Arsenault via llvm-dev wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >> On Jun 19, 2020, at 15:38, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev<br>
> >> <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >> I'm interested to hear more about the actual problem Matt perceives<br>
> >> with respect to the release actually: why should the release<br>
> have any<br>
> >> impact with the development branch?<br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> > That was just an example of a concrete time. Other transitions<br>
> requiring<br>
> > wide coordination have had some release-associated timeframe (like<br>
> > minimum toolchain/cmake upgrades), so I thought it would just be a<br>
> > logical semi-arbitrary point in time.<br>
> ><br>
> Would it make sense to pick that semi-arbitrary point in time as being<br>
> the next release? So master is renamed for the next release.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Well you wrote in another email: `please do things for sound *technical* <br>
> reason`, what is the technical reason here?<br>
> We *can* pick this point in time, but I haven't seen the reason to do so <br>
> (and actually since we're already making branch/tag changes at that time <br>
> it may even be a reason to avoid it).<br>
> <br>
> <br>
I was thinking that, since the making of a new release is a fork (of <br>
sorts), in a very real sense you're kicking off a new master, and so <br>
kicking it off with a new name makes sense to me.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That is not how the branch management works unfortunately.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I would have thought a lot of people will stick the with the new release <br>
for a while (which would keep the "master" name if it's appropriate) so <br>
they can just carry on as nothing's changed.<br>
<br>
But as people switch from the new release to the new development branch <br>
they also have to switch to the new name. The change may be a jolt to <br>
the project, but the developers will switch when they're ready, and any <br>
disruption to the project will be at a time when it impacts the fewest <br>
people and offers the maximum opportunity to fix any hiccups at a time <br>
of minimum impact.</blockquote><div><br></div><div></div></div></div></div>