Interesting, so is it possible England might control northern france, perhaps reestablishing the Angevin Empire?
Angevine Empire, in spite of its name, certainly wasn't an unified demesne. It was rather a common feudal hegemony on really diverse demesnes, themselves often divided in small entities (especially Aquitaine, that was a true political mosaic). Hence why the revolts of Henry II's sons fit remarkably the demesnes they recieved : Aquitaine, Anjou, Normandy, etc. each with their own identity, their own structures, their own interests.
All of that under the still present suzerainty of the French kings that could play on the feudal piano quite easily.
If something, turning back to the Angevine Empire is not that would have been a good idea. (It was more or less the spirit of Brétigny, after all, Aquitaine being gave in all property to Plantagenet*)
*Well very technically : the agreed exchanges of territories were never really made, and several places beyond Aquitaine were still on Anglo-Gascon hands, while others in Aquitaine were still under Valois control. If you add to that that Charles V never considered the peace as something else than a truce and readily tried to play on a suzerainty over Aquitaine that technically didn't existed anymore...
As for Northern France...It depends, I'd tend to think that *Edward IV would have gaven more focus to Aquitaine rather than Northern France were support was really low, if not virtually inexistant. IOTL, the Orléans-Armagnac/Bourgogne civil war allowed the English chevauchées in Northern France (that I could still see existing ITTL) to evolve into real campaigns.
It's hard to really tell if the political infighthing is still going to transform itself into a fully fledged civil war, so XVth would be definitely blurry until you sort out what happen in the late XIVth century.
If *Edward IV manages to break inner troubles in England (lollards, Parliment, John of Gand) and Ireland, maybe thanks to a smoother succession, and if he managed to keep more of Plantagenet holdings in France (more of Aquitaine, IMO) giving his personality, I think he would still attempt a truce but not searching for a peaceful treatment of the conflicts.
(And of course, forget about any peace treaty that would not give him the full property of Aquitaine. It was attempted IOTL with Richard II, but refused because French suzerainty would have been maintained)
Basically...
In a first time, roughly in the 70's/80's, I could see Edward of Aquitaine still fighting locally, but with less and less ressources (taxes in Gascons lords can be only difficultly raised, even IOTL he had troubles paying his troops not even mentioning awarding local nobles to prevent a shift of alliegance) refused by Edward III and the Parliament.
Basically it means that the only safe way, as IOTL, to fund the war is to use chevauchées, which is definitely not going to make him popular. (Something close to what happened IOTL in Lancaster Normandy : as they were repetitively raided since decades, a real anti-English feeling appeared, and it was one of the provinces in Northern France were a true resistance against England develloped).
Eventually, Edward of Aquitaine have no way to propose the same deal to Aquitain cities than Charles V did : tax exemption for 20 years if they switched sides. And bloody expeditions as in Limoges didn't exactly terrified the land into obedience, quite the contrary.
Even if Edward can hold more, he's still going to loose big.
In a second time, when succeeding his father. He would have to deal with fiscal, social, dynastical issues. De facto, you'd have a truce for at least some years even with a likely failure of a formal truce such as Bruges*.
I doubt he would be able to use the fiscal revolts in France at his benefit, not before Valois would crush them, mainly because he'd have to deal with his own.
I could see more Plantagenet diplomatic success, critically with the Great Schism, with alliances more or less achieved with other "Roman" supporters, or with German princes.
As such I could see *Edward IV intervening in France in the late 1380's, in support of Gand and Gueldre, for exemple.
This is going to change the "Uncles' government" a bit : they were more focused on social peace and normalisation of rapports with cities and populations after the civil unrest.
They are going to deal with a still agressive England, and still had the means to do it. It could mean that Philippe le Hardi would have a more important policy in Northern France than Germany, for exemple.
Eventually, the threat of a French invasion of England, as it was planned then abandoned in mid-1380 could revive.
Maybe the aborted expedition in Castille could appear ITTL. John of Gand was ready to go, but the Parliment wasn't thrilled about the strong man of England going into a diversion war.
ITTL, with *Edward IV still there, and with a clear succession, such expedition would be more probable.
Even if I could see Castille abandoned in favour of a Flemish intervention in spite of John's claims due to Parliament : it would be too ruinous of an expedition only for limited gain for England and without any real guarantee of success.
And that's what going to be the big problem for *Edward IV : the Parliament.
New Taxes? Nope. Fund your war yourself.
Reinforced royal authority? Nope. You don't deserve it.
Allowing a more coherent strategy than just hit and run? Why this is tyranny!
And he couldn't just crush them, not if he wants to rule another day; while still not undergoing to Valois conditions of peace.
So,
in a third time, after interventions in the 1380's, 1390's, I could see a similar truce than IOTL, as in an uneasy one that could really evolve only trough France and England inner policies (as it did IOTL in France with the madness of Charles VI).
Basically : maybe a more important Plantagenet presence in France, probably a less troubled post-Edward III England, probably interventions in France (with the consequences having a France less incline to undergo far expeditions, as in Italy, than attacking again).
A good twist would be to have Valois taking back Calais, that was really a pain to negociate any truce (both sides wanting to keep it). More or less so : a relativly stronger Plantagenet continental holding at first, Valois small reconquest, *Edward IV trying to keep what can be saved (and is still relativly more than IOTL) and eventually agreeing to a formal truce.
But all of that wouldn't end the war, IMO. It was kind of a mexican stand-off at this point.
*Basically, Valois were incline to trade peace for Aquitaine and money, but keeping french suzerainty. Which was unacceptable for Plantagenets, and wouldn't have been that wise giving the intensive use of said suzerainty by Capetians and Valois to confiscate lands.
Valois really wanted peace to alleviate the fiscal charges, but Plantagenets would have basically no interest for the moment to do so.
In TTL, some cock up in the duchy may well be the catalyst for rekindling the war, whether England's king is Edward III, or his son, the newly crowned Edward IV.
Actually, IOTL, this conflict was quite in the line of diversion attempt against the major success of Valois, similar to the failed 1373 chevauchée.
With a superior army (both numerically and tactically), and the support of local nobility (that simply didn't wanted to revive the old civil war and were pissed at the lack of respect of Plantagenets for their neutrality), Plantagnenets and John IV are definitely going to have an hard time. (The war didn't even lasted 2 months IOTL).
Eventually, Charles V had the means to stay there (and to swallow up the duchy as planned at some point), while John heavily depended from English support (that transformed their help quickly into garrison and occupation, which didn't pleased much Breton nobility).
I could see, with a more agressive Plantagenet policy (but then again, with which money?) Brittany turning into another front as you proposed. Not that it would be wise for England : it was supposed to be a general diversion, not another drain of forces and ressources. And if John IV doesn't try to neutralise his duchy at the death of Charles V, it's what is going to happen.