I think most of the repos just went with GitHub default, which recently
changed from master to main.
In Anitya and the-new-hotness I have:
- master
- staging
- production
The staging and production corresponds to deployment in OpenShift. This
is why I named them like this.
But yes I'm for unification in naming for any new project.
Michal
On 13. 07. 21 2:29, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 08:49:22PM +1000, Ryan Lerch wrote:
> Looking through the fedora-infra org on github, there seems to be a
> plethora of different branch names that all roughly cover the same
> idea.
>
> Loosley put, there are a bunch of different ways to name branches for:
>
> * develop / dev / main / master
> * staging / stage
> * prod / stable
>
> Just wondering if there is a default recommendation for naming these 3
> branches in a project, and if there isn't can i propose:
>
> * dev
> * staging
> * stable
Thats fine with me. I don't think we should go about changing them all
at once tho... perhaps when/as we do the next release of them? Otherwise
it seems like a lot of churn...
kevin
_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedora...
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure