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.
I think a branch is a good opportunity to convey information about the branch's purpose. For example, "dev", "devel", "develop", "staging", "stable" and "production" are good names in my opinion, much better than "master" or "main" which are too generic. Do I get the production code if I clone "master" or "main", or do I get the development code? No idea.
So I'm in favor of having the following branches:
- either "dev", "devel", or "develop"
- either "stable" or "production"
For the apps that are deployed in Openshift, I also think it makes sense to have a "staging" branch that Openshift would trigger builds on.
I've briefly looked at a few apps that we have in the Github org, and there's quite a few that have either "dev" or "develop" branches. The popularity winner between the two is not clear and I didn't want to write an actual script to check them all and exclude those who are obsolete, but feel free to do it if you have the itch ;-) (remember to check pagure too ;-) )
I think it would be easier for the infra & releng team to be able to expect some unified naming guidelines when maintaining the host of apps that we have, but maybe it's my projection.
If we decide on something, we can then let the project maintainers adjust when they feel the time is right, and it would be useful for new projects.