Hi Folks,

I would like to propose that we change the OpenMAMA github default git branch to “next” instead of “master”.

This would mean that:

• When you visit our github page, you will see the latest development code and documentation
• When you clone the repository, you no longer need to change branch before making feature branches which will eventually become pull requests.

Note all existing clones etc would remain unchanged so this won’t actually “break” anything for existing OpenMAMA developers.

The rationale being that “master” is reflective of the last stable release, but it’s also the source of the main README output when visitors come to the github page which makes it look like the project is less active than it actually is, repo documentation effectively slows down to match the biannual release cycle etc.

The industry in general is also gradually moving away from the “master” nomenclature for branches with linux and github both making noises about moving away from defaulting to that branch name, so this would pave the way for eventual retirement of the branch name (which is actually fine - we can just use our release branches instead as we already do with minimal impact).

If anyone has any comments or feedback on this, please respond on this thread.

Cheers,

Frank

Frank Quinn

Cascadium

T: +44 (0) 28 8678 8015

E: fquinn@...

W: http://cascadium.io

Sounds quite sensible to me, Frank.

Hi Folks,

I would like to propose that we change the OpenMAMA github default git branch to “next” instead of “master”.

This would mean that:

• When you visit our github page, you will see the latest development code and documentation
• When you clone the repository, you no longer need to change branch before making feature branches which will eventually become pull requests.

Note all existing clones etc would remain unchanged so this won’t actually “break” anything for existing OpenMAMA developers.

The rationale being that “master” is reflective of the last stable release, but it’s also the source of the main README output when visitors come to the github page which makes it look like the project is less active than it actually is, repo documentation effectively slows down to match the biannual release cycle etc.

The industry in general is also gradually moving away from the “master” nomenclature for branches with linux and github both making noises about moving away from defaulting to that branch name, so this would pave the way for eventual retirement of the branch name (which is actually fine - we can just use our release branches instead as we already do with minimal impact).

If anyone has any comments or feedback on this, please respond on this thread.

Cheers,

Frank

Frank Quinn

Cascadium

T: +44 (0) 28 8678 8015

E: fquinn@...

W: http://cascadium.io

Hi Folks,

The default branch for OpenMAMA has now been set to “next”. Looks a little more lively already 😊

If anyone runs into any issues, let me know. Hopefully overall this will make things a little easier.

Cheers,

Frank

Sounds quite sensible to me, Frank.

Hi Folks,

I would like to propose that we change the OpenMAMA github default git branch to “next” instead of “master”.

This would mean that:

• When you visit our github page, you will see the latest development code and documentation
• When you clone the repository, you no longer need to change branch before making feature branches which will eventually become pull requests.

Note all existing clones etc would remain unchanged so this won’t actually “break” anything for existing OpenMAMA developers.

The rationale being that “master” is reflective of the last stable release, but it’s also the source of the main README output when visitors come to the github page which makes it look like the project is less active than it actually is, repo documentation effectively slows down to match the biannual release cycle etc.

The industry in general is also gradually moving away from the “master” nomenclature for branches with linux and github both making noises about moving away from defaulting to that branch name, so this would pave the way for eventual retirement of the branch name (which is actually fine - we can just use our release branches instead as we already do with minimal impact).

If anyone has any comments or feedback on this, please respond on this thread.

Cheers,

Frank

Frank Quinn

Cascadium

T: +44 (0) 28 8678 8015

E: fquinn@...

W: http://cascadium.io

This message is confidential and subject to terms at: https://www.jpmorgan.com/emaildisclaimer including on confidential, privileged or legal entity information, malicious content and monitoring of electronic messages. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.