-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 147
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Make the v2 branch the default branch #302
Comments
I do have access to make the v2 branch the default. Is that your preference? |
Deleting the master branch might be the safest choice, given those options. |
Yes please, let's make |
I've set the default branch. You should be able to delete the master branch. |
Thanks! It looks like I can't delete the master branch because it is protected. |
I've deleted the branch protection rule for master and added a matching one for v2. It does not yet have any required status checks enabled, because there have been no status checks on that branch yet. I've also granted you admin access to this repository. |
Will the CI workflow need to be updated? |
Some changes are needed for CI to work correctly and I've pushed a PR (#305) that should fix a couple of things so far. |
I think you'll want to protect |
I have pushed the changes from #284 to the v2 branch in this repo, and made a v1 branch where maintenance of smallvec 1.x can continue. These branches have diverged, and there are several things that need to be forward-ported from the v1 branch to the v2 branch before we can release it. This will require significant manual rebasing / cherry-picking / conflict resolution, so I couldn't just merge the v2 branch into master.
In order to focus new development on the 2.0 codebase and avoid further divergence, I would like to make
v2
the default branch. I am not an admin of this repo. @jdm, do you have access to do this, and do you agree with this plan? And what should we do with the oldmaster
branch in the meantime?Some possible approaches:
master
branch, leaving only thev1
andv2
branches for now. I believe this will cause errors onpull
for developers with existing forks of this repo, which will be disruptive but will also help alert them to this situation. Once version 2.0 is released, either keepv2
as the default branch, or create a newmain
branch to be the default.master
branch, simply overwriting the existing code, and delete thev2
branch. The default branch remainsmaster
, causing the least disruption to developers with existing forks. However, the commit history onmaster
will be somewhat confusing.v1
branch, keep the v1 code on themaster
branch for now, but makev2
the default branch. Then we have two branches and both have clean git history, but existing developers withmaster
checked out may not notice they are no longer working on the latest code.Maybe GitHub's branch renaming and redirect feature can help somehow?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: