4 ms·

Master and default have different meaning. Master in git mean master record for other branches. In mercurial default is more applicable because common workflow

Master and default have different meaning. Master in git mean master record for other branches. In mercurial default is more applicable because common workflow is not branch based but change set.

alwillis 6y ago
It depends on the workflow. But Mercurial can be used just like Git when it comes to a branch-based workflow regardless of the underlying data model. It could be argued that by default, Mercurial discourages rewriting history unless you really want to and you know what you’re doing. So the definition of a ‘master’ branch is more applicable to Mercurial than it is to Git.
alwillis 6y ago
seeing all the pushback to the “rename the master branch” movement is disheartening. if renaming the branch makes even one current or future employee (or even an open source contributor feel more welcome!), why push back so hard on this? https://twitter.com/vaidehijoshi/status/1271555823139876864?s=21 https://twitter.com/vaidehijoshi/status/1271555823139876864?...
- Chyzwar 6y ago
  Because not all uses of "master" have negative connotations. I can support renaming master-slave, but git is not such case. There is pushback because it creates massive amount of work for us without a good reason. All CI/CD pipelines, scripts, tools. Integration fixes, regressions and failed deployments because branch was main not master.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - alwillis 6y ago
    Because not all uses of "master" have negative connotations. I can support renaming master-slave, but git is not such case. Turns out that Git’s use of master decends from a use that is about master/slave: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...
    - Chyzwar 6y ago
      Evidence you use come from Gnome mailing list where Gnome maintainers where discussing unrelated issue.

Master and default have different meaning. Master in git mean master record for other branches. In mercurial default is more applicable because common workflow is not branch based but change set.

alwillis 6y ago

It depends on the workflow. But Mercurial can be used just like Git when it comes to a branch-based workflow regardless of the underlying data model. It could be argued that by default, Mercurial discourages rewriting history unless you really want to and you know what you’re doing. So the definition of a ‘master’ branch is more applicable to Mercurial than it is to Git.

alwillis 6y ago

seeing all the pushback to the “rename the master branch” movement is disheartening. if renaming the branch makes even one current or future employee (or even an open source contributor feel more welcome!), why push back so hard on this? https://twitter.com/vaidehijoshi/status/1271555823139876864?s=21 https://twitter.com/vaidehijoshi/status/1271555823139876864?...

Chyzwar 6y ago
Because not all uses of "master" have negative connotations. I can support renaming master-slave, but git is not such case. There is pushback because it creates massive amount of work for us without a good reason. All CI/CD pipelines, scripts, tools. Integration fixes, regressions and failed deployments because branch was main not master.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- alwillis 6y ago
  Because not all uses of "master" have negative connotations. I can support renaming master-slave, but git is not such case. Turns out that Git’s use of master decends from a use that is about master/slave: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...
  - Chyzwar 6y ago
    Evidence you use come from Gnome mailing list where Gnome maintainers where discussing unrelated issue.