<div dir="ltr">Tim,<br>thanks for organizing names at this opportune moment.<br>Here are my questions and thoughts.<br><br>For the big picture, are we moving away from the stragy of<br>"release after major improvements and name it after an island"?<br>Is the alternative to just tag a version of the public git(hub)<br>master, after it has passed all the tests?<br>The naming strategy for the future could or should determine<br>the renaming strategy for the old stuff.<br><br>Are we abandoning the "trunk" terminology in favor of "master",<br>even though we're keeping git's "branches"?<br><br>I'm not such a fan of "classic" because it implies to me<br>some sort of standard, tried-and-true, always ready version,<br>while this version is more like "the old version you might<br>want to use if we didn't upgrade the part that you want."<br>My alternative would depend on whether we continue to use islands.<br><br>Dropping 'rma_' sounds good. Whether it is replaced by something<br>to denote Manhattan (or later release or tag names) depends on <br>our development strategy for the future.<br>Genertally it's nice to have branch names<br>that communicate what's in them; the original version,<br>the major modification or project, etc., but it takes<br>some discipline to merge a branch back into the trunk<br>before its name becomes outdated.<br><br><div>If rma_trunk is the thing that was released as Manhattan,</div><div>then I'm fine with "The svn 'rma_trunk' branch will be named 'master'".<br>I'm very tripped up by<br>"(the traditional name for git development branches)"<br>My understanding of master is that it is the base<br>from which development branches are made. It is not<br>modified until all the development work is done<br>and merged into the master.</div><div><br></div><div>Kevin<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 5:31 PM Tim Hoar <<a href="mailto:thoar@ucar.edu">thoar@ucar.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I am in the process of converting the svn DART repository to a git repository that will be available on GitHub.<div>There will be a private GitHub repository for development of branches that have private svn repositories.</div><div>After I verify the private GitHub repo is working correctly and has all the desired content, we will create another</div><div>public GitHub repo with just the public branches.<br><div><br></div><div>This seems like the right time to make some choices.</div><div><br></div><div>Since a git repo traditionally has all the branches available, I was wondering it it might be appropriate to adopt some</div><div>sort of convention about branch names. Should all the branches based on the 'pre-Manhattan' file layout start with a 'classic_' prefix?</div><div>It would be easy to document that any 'classic_' branch is in maintenance mode and will not get any more development.</div><div><br></div><div>There are a slew of branches that use the Manhattan layout ... most of them start with 'rma_' which means little to</div><div>most people. Compound that with the fact that there are some 'rma_' branches that use the 'classic' file layout, and you see how</div><div>things can get misleading.</div><div><br></div><div>I propose that all the branches with the 'classic' layout get a 'classic' prefix, and any branch that uses the Manhattan layout simply use</div><div>the branch name ... and we drop the 'rma_' from the branch name if necessary.</div><div><br></div><div>The svn 'trunk' branch will be renamed 'classic'</div><div>The svn 'rma_trunk' branch will be named 'master' (the traditional name for git development branches)</div><div><br></div><div>Please weigh in with your preferences/opinions as soon as possible. </div><div>Any and all advice is appreciated.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks -- Tim </div><div><br></div><div>P.S. Also please be aware that the svn repository has been made readonly. We have a working git repository, but I want to</div><div>make the branch name changes (if necessary) as soon as possible and then I will push to GitHub.</div><div><br></div><div>Sincerely, Tim - on behalf of the DART team.</div><div><br></div><div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_9075594253017110111gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Tim Hoar<div>Data Assimilation Research Section</div><div>National Center for Atmospheric Research</div><div><a href="mailto:thoar@ucar.edu" target="_blank">thoar@ucar.edu</a></div><div>303.497.1708</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>