4 ms·
Agreed. I was interested to read in the article that the master name does indeed originate from master/slave, because that doesn’t map to my mental model of git
by afavour 6y ago
Agreed. I was interested to read in the article that the master name does indeed originate from master/slave, because that doesn’t map to my mental model of git branching at all.
If “main” is a better description and offends fewer people, why not switch? Just seems like opposing a very minor change for the sake of it.
- rvnx 6y agoThis will necessarily cause some people to hijack the reference branch by creating one branch called "master" and this branch may be used upstream (e.g. Debian builds) to create packages without approval from the main maintainer (who is committing in "main").
- afavour 6y agoIf there are any tools hardcoded to use master then there’s nothing stopping anyone continuing to call their reference branch “master”. These changes don’t even apply to existing repos, just as a default for new ones.