Branches for development

[serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com]

Hi Jc,

Yes, it looks most reasonable to me.

Thanks,
Serguei

On 3/15/19 1:48 PM, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
> I believe that when you clone the repo, you are set to be in default by
> "default". Therefore committers will have to ensure care and
> self-preservation to not be pushing to it.
>
> Using a different name than "default" for the mirror branch would alleviate
> that.
>
> But I agree consistency is important so I'll also vote on:
>
> - default: mirror of jdk/jdk
> - tsan: main development branch for tsan
>
> Anyone else have an opinion on this?
> Jc
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 1:41 PM Man Cao <manc at google.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd vote to be consistent with other projects such as Loom or Valhalla,
>> that "default" is the mirror of jdk/jdk.
>> Being consistent would at least avoid confusion when contributors from
>> other projects participate in the tsan project. And there might be a
>> technical reason that we are unaware of, e.g., using "default" as the
>> mirror might ease the merge process somehow.
>> Is there a reason why "mirror" as the mirror and "default" as the
>> development branch is superior to the other way round?
>>
>> For "stable" and "unstable", it might be better that we start off with just
>> one development branch ("dev" or "tsan" are better names than "unstable",
>> IMO), and when there's a need to demonstrate something, we fork a
>> "stable-[timestamp]" branch if we feel it's necessary.
>> Maintaining two ongoing branches requires extra work for merging and
>> porting, which is likely troublesome.
>>
>> -Man
>>
>