You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
To lower the amount of confusion between this repo and the ayc/SDL3 repo, I'd like to rename this repo to SDL2. This won't break CI for existing users because GitHub keeps the redirect for as long as we don't override it.
If anybody has reason to push against this idea, please post here. I'll wait a couple of days and then push the change if nobody raises a complatint.
The SDL_image and SDL_ttf repos have v3 on the main branch and v2 on the v2 branch. I'd be in favor of doing that here too. v2 can be created off main, and then the SDL3 contents can be force pushed onto the main branch.
Thank you for chiming in, would you be open to the idea of doing what you describe but to the SDL3 repo?
Meaning we create a v2 branch in the SDL3 repo with the contents of this repo, and then we delete this repo and rename SDL3 to SDL. I would of course give you write rights to that repo same as this one.
I'm suggesting this so that the repo stops being a fork of the upstream repo (GH doesn't let me leave the fork network with this repo).
This sounds good to me, though IMO we should name the branch SDL2.
The upstream projects in libsdl-org have a branch named SDL2 that serves the same purpose, so this naming scheme is familiar. Additionally, this it removes any chance of confusion around whether v2 is v2 of the library, v2 of Zig, v2 of SDL, or something else.
Activity
jayschwa commentedon Jun 30, 2026
The SDL_image and SDL_ttf repos have v3 on the main branch and v2 on the v2 branch. I'd be in favor of doing that here too. v2 can be created off main, and then the SDL3 contents can be force pushed onto the main branch.
jayschwa commentedon Jun 30, 2026
(That's also the same strategy upstream uses.)
kristoff-it commentedon Jun 30, 2026
Thank you for chiming in, would you be open to the idea of doing what you describe but to the SDL3 repo?
Meaning we create a
v2branch in the SDL3 repo with the contents of this repo, and then we delete this repo and rename SDL3 to SDL. I would of course give you write rights to that repo same as this one.I'm suggesting this so that the repo stops being a fork of the upstream repo (GH doesn't let me leave the fork network with this repo).
jayschwa commentedon Jun 30, 2026
That works too. I'm curious why the fork network matters - why do you not want it?
kristoff-it commentedon Jun 30, 2026
yeah doesn't matter much, it's mainly because the v3 code uses the pristine tarball approach.
kristoff-it commentedon Jun 30, 2026
@MasonRemaley are you also on board with this plan?
MasonRemaley commentedon Jun 30, 2026
This sounds good to me, though IMO we should name the branch
SDL2.The upstream projects in libsdl-org have a branch named
SDL2that serves the same purpose, so this naming scheme is familiar. Additionally, this it removes any chance of confusion around whetherv2is v2 of the library, v2 of Zig, v2 of SDL, or something else.kristoff-it commentedon Jul 1, 2026
@jayschwa you have now write access to SDL3, ping me when you have created your branch and are ready to commit to the switch.
jayschwa commentedon Jul 1, 2026
https://github.com/allyourcodebase/SDL3/tree/SDL2.
@kristoff-it make it so.