On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 12:03:17PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:13:19AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I don't think you can make branches completely descripive by themselves,
> unless possibly you make them really long.
>
> flatpak_branch_where_stable_flatpaks_are_made_from
That it is about flatpaks is already described in the namespace, that it
is a branch is clear from git. This only leaves "stable" as the one
information in the long name that would be missing.
Sure, but 'stable' doesn't convey: These are flatpacks built against the
platform we deem as stable and distributed to all the stable fedora
releases. :) You just can't contain all the information about a branch
in it's name. (IMHO).
> rawhide_its_the_branch_for_the_development_version_of_fedora_called_rawhide
It is fair to assume that someone who needs to use this already knows
what rawhide is. Otherwise they did not have any use for the branch,
even if it is called "main", so this long explanation does not make
sense, there.
Well, a new packager may well assume rawhide is main if they are used to
main being the main development branch...
> I suppose it's ok to make 'rawhide' a symref to
main, or 'stable' in the
> flatpak case...
"main" as a symref might help people that are used to using main.
Assuming that the symrefs are not visible, it makes more sense to use
the descriptive names for the branches such as rawhide/stable. Then they
Your message seems to have gotten cut off here? :(
symrefs appear just like any other ref... so adding one does mean that
there's now more choices, just 2 of them are exactly the same.
kevin