3 ms·
Naming the default branch "master" is only a convention, not a requirement. Therefore, docs should not make any assumption about the name but give it as an exam
by cooper12 6y ago
Naming the default branch "master" is only a convention, not a requirement. Therefore, docs should not make any assumption about the name but give it as an example or <variable>. The deficiency here is clearly in the docs.
- bonzini 6y agoYou said that: any example that uses "git rebase origin/master" would be broken.
- ivan_gammel 6y agoIt will not be broken, it will be just an example for a random branch with a strange name. People which are not able to understand the abstraction and to apply it to their own repository structure, must choose another job.
- komali2 6y agoOnly if a project has used master as the main branch. We use "develop" for whatever reason and "master" (created by default by gitlab) hasn't updated since initial commit. I agree that teams should be making these decisions on their own. It's just a branch name.
- ivan_gammel 6y agoThis. Poor choice of the original name was codified as some law, but it has never been a law and it’s time to clean up. I have seen discussions around the topic: “we have the master branch, what should we store there?” Semantics of the name were lost long time ago and it became just a random magic string in a ritual, which is not easy to explain or understand.