alain_bkr I see no point in doing this.
Git init something creates a branch called master.
Don't waste energy on useless stuff, which will only cause trouble.
Reply To alain_bkr
Git init something creates a branch called master.
Even that git level default is about to change.
alain_bkr so what ? it could be named trunk or root or anything, i don't see any added value of renaming it, but only potential problems.
As a potential occasional contributor i would prefer a document explaining the meanings of branches (i guess save format changes, and some major feature changes), and where / how to work in my own branch on github and get patches merged.
Reply To alain_bkr
so what ?
That's for the one, who brought the 'git default' thing up, to tell.
For the rest: Your points have been noted - not ignored - even though I have no comments to add at the moment.
Reply To alain_bkr
As a potential occasional contributor i would prefer a document explaining the meanings of branches (i guess save format changes, and some major feature changes), and where / how to work in my own branch on github and get patches merged.
As for which branch to work on, the short answer is: master first. After that's done, we decide what older versions it gets backported to.
Reply To alain_bkr
As a potential occasional contributor i would prefer a document explaining the meanings of branches (i guess save format changes, and some major feature changes), and where / how to work in my own branch on github and get patches merged.
Opened a ticket covering at least part of that -> #44499
We're two years late to this compared to when everyone was doing it, but I think it would make sense to rename 'master' branch at the time of branching S3_2 (#44374). So the rename does not disrupt 3.2 development but 3.3 development begins in a newly named branch.
As for the name of the branch, either "main" (consistent with many other projects) or "development", maybe shortened to "devel" or "dev", (descriptive of our use of the branch) would be ok for me.