Changing name of default branch? #142
Comments
@kyeah I just wanted to bump this issue again in light of #170. "1.0" doesn't actually refer to anything useful anymore; it originally meant that we were developing for Rust 1.0 rather than 0.x like the previous implementation of the driver was, but given that Rust is now on 1.13 (and has proven to be pretty stable in terms of releases, as we've never had to make any fixes due to language changes), I think that it would be worth changing to something more generic (especially since "1.0" might imply to some people that this is version 1.0 of the driver, which is definitely not the case) |
I think we need an admin to turn on the travis switch for 1.0, but yeah, moving to |
@saghm don't know how you feel about doing a simple name swap and -f push -- generally this is an awful, sketchy idea, but since everyone has been working with
|
I can take care of talking to the powers that be to switch the default branch once we make the change. As for the process of the actual branch changes in git, do you think it's better to completely delete 1.0 (i.e. renaming it to master) or to just checkout master from 1.0 and switch to developing there? The former would be useful in that anyone remotely tracking 1.0 would notice the change in default branch the next time they tried to pull, but it would mess with the history and likely force people to have to clone a fresh copy of the repo, which could be a hassle for anyone maintaining a fork for their own use. (Renaming the current On the other hand, checking out a new |
We should go with renaming 1.0 (deleting it) instead of checking out |
Cool, sounds good. I assume that you don't have any objections to me taking care of this now? |
Nope, go for it. |
I'm going to hold off on deleting 1.0 for now just in case Github does something weird if you delete the default branch |
The default branch has been changed to master and 1.0 has been deleted |
Right now, the default branch is called
1.0
. This made sense when we were first writing the driver, since we were writing a new driver for Rust 1.0 as opposed to the earlier version for pre-stable Rust. However, Rust stable is now at 1.7 (and will continue updating with new minor versions every six weeks), so I'm thinking it might be more idiomatic to name it something that would be more version-agnostic (with respect to Rust). I don't have any strong opinion on what that new name should be, but given thatmaster
is basically defunct now and we probably aren't going to want to deal with merging1.0
with it or anything like that, I'm thinkingcurrent
or something along the lines of that might make more sense.@vkarpov15 @kyeah any thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: