Repository navigation
[maintenance] Branche maintenance #6782
Description
I propose removing all old branches to simplify maintenance and clear things up for (potential) contributors.
- Keeping old branches like 3.1 has no purpose, we can always go back to 3.1 from the current branch.
- We don't actively support multiple branches, and if we do, we shouldn't there's no bandwidth for it.
I propose:
- Renaming the primary branch to main
- Dropping all version branches
- Setting up automated releases on the master branch using semantic versioning and semantic commit messages
@Naktibalda @DavertMik @TavoNiievez
I can do all of these, just want some people to agree before I make changes like this.
Activity
Naktibalda commented on Sep 11, 2024
master branch should be created from 5.2.
Please keep 5.1 if you think that 5.1 is still supported.
In the days of Codeception 2 and 3, when modules were part of Codeception/Codeception repository, documentation pages contained links to source code is particular branches.
There was even a row of versions to choose from, but these links had been removed recently (in the last 2 years or so).
TavoNiievez commented on Sep 12, 2024
Ok with the changes.
Just main instead of master.
SamMousa commented on Sep 12, 2024
Out of respect for your work im going to agree with it just this once, even though i very strongly disagree with this! Im happy to have a discussion about it, but this is probably not the place for political/ideological discussions ;-)
If the others agree with it too ofc
TavoNiievez commented on Sep 12, 2024
very thoughtful of you, thank you.
Let's continue.
SamMousa commented on Sep 12, 2024
Someone with permissions needs to these:
SamMousa commented on Sep 12, 2024
@Naktibalda I propose removing it, we can always recreate it from a tag. We don't really want to support 5.1 since 5.2.x should be backwards compatibility anyway.
Naktibalda commented on Sep 12, 2024
@SamMousa I granted you and @TavoNiievez some extra permissions.
DavertMik commented on Sep 15, 2024
I think version-named branches are fine, maybe they could be improved as 5.x or 6.x
This was a good decision as
But I agree with the decision you've made. Thank you all for your involvement!
SamMousa commented on Sep 15, 2024
We dont have bandwidth for regular maintenance let alone backports xD the nice thing about 1 branch is automated releases based on commit messages, thats the dream when it comes to low cost maintenance.
Also it makes contribution easier and more worthwhile. I see a bug, i fix it and if it gets merged i can instantly use it. Instead of putting your own fork in composer and forgetting about it for months etc