On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Michael Osipov wrote:

>> 7_42 is for the 7.42 series, starting from 7.42.0. I don't think the branch
>> name is terribly important. Is it? How would you like it called ?
>> 'branch-7.42.x' ?
>
> Given that it is already a branch, I consider the prefix 'branch-' as
> redundant, I would stick to '7.42.x' or 'curl-7.42.x'.

But that could be considered confusingly similar to our tag names. They're in
the "curl-7_42_0" format...

> I think a name has to be clear and easy recognizable for everyone cloning
> from GitHub.

We need to explain somewhere what the branch is for whatever we call them
though. Or if we don't, the pattern will be quite easy to detect anyway (at
least once we create more patch branches than the single existing one)...

> Consider Isaac Boukris would like to work on GH-232 from a stable branch
> without hindering anyone else.

I would still recommend working rebased on the master. It isn't like we're
doing massive and ground-breaking changes very often that would ruin it for
contributors.

I want pull requests or patches based on master when time is ripe for review.

> He would simply branch off 7.42.x (stable), call the new brach GH-232 which
> is a feature branch. This naming pattern would be directly visible for
> everyone fetching from bagder/curl and especially when he is ready to merge
> his changes back to master. We have a selfexplanatory Git log.

I prefer a clean and linear git history as long as we're this small and have
this easy development process.

Let's not overdo it.

-- 
  / daniel.haxx.se
-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library
Etiquette:  http://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html