Actually, I think you make a pretty good point. The only trouble in our system with calling it "trunk" is that we effectively have three trees: stable, fresh, and (now) devel. While changes generally flow devel -> fresh -> stable, that's not always the case. If there's a critical bug in stable, and we're working on a separate release on fresh, we would need to branch off stable, change things, run it through the CI/CD, and then land that branch directly to stable.
It's somewhat along the same lines as when one of our team members said it should really be "main" to indicate "the primary branch" — even he agreed that didn't make sense once I explained that we had three primaries.
Actually, I think you make a pretty good point. The only trouble in our system with calling it "trunk" is that we effectively have three trees: stable, fresh, and (now) devel. While changes generally flow
devel->fresh->stable, that's not always the case. If there's a critical bug in stable, and we're working on a separate release onfresh, we would need to branch off stable, change things, run it through the CI/CD, and then land that branch directly to stable.It's somewhat along the same lines as when one of our team members said it should really be "main" to indicate "the primary branch" — even he agreed that didn't make sense once I explained that we had three primaries.
Three trunks . . . It's a hydra! :D