When I started, it was obvious to me that fN stands for Fedora release N and epelM stands for EPEL release M. Could we just leave this out and spare text and reader's attention for more tricky items? If anything, I would like to remove the existing sentence "The rawhide branch if for Rawhide" — I guess it used to say "The master branch is for Rawhide", which made sense to explain, but after the default branch name change was changed to that tautology.

Do you have a concrete case where branch naming caused confusion or why do you think it is good to add this explanation?

I liked the old form in that is explained the meaning of branches is dist-git. That is something specific to Fedora (and others using dist-git), while the fact that there are branches is generic Git stuff, which I do not think we need to cover. Perhaps just add "and EPEL", if the issue was that not all branched were covered by the old formulation.

As the lines of this section until here are general information, not specifically about Requesting branches, and probably not currently explained anywhere in Package Maintainer Docs, would it make more sense to move them to Working with branches section start? Requesting branches subsection could then focus on that actual topic.

That would also allow (which I propose you do) to move the use case from New Package Process for New Contributors # Add Package to Source Code Management (SCM) system and Set Owner to here and just provide a link from there.

Thank you for the contribution. I left some comments, perhaps more because I think Package Maintenance Guide is in quite bad shape, rather than because I dislike anything in this change. I don't consider any of those as blocking, but I would at least like to hear the reasoning for the approach that was taken.

My thinking was that with the in-depth explanation later, it sounded better to not repeat it incompletely at the start. But if I drop the latter explanation as you suggest I can summarize it here better.

I was continuing the pattern of explaining the rawhide branch name. I see your point about it no longer being needed, and it's fine to just drop this whole paragraph.

Sure, I can rework it that way.

Thank you, looks good now!

I will merge this now and follow up with a commit that removes the (now duplicate) instructions from New Package Process for New Contributors.

Follow up commit is now available for review in #166.