3 ms·
Since we are talking about branches, wouldn't a "root" branch makes more sense?
by headhuntermdk 6y ago
Since we are talking about branches, wouldn't a "root" branch makes more sense?
- dreamer_ 6y agoNo, because root has already an established, clear meaning in Unix world.
- kps 6y agoI wanted ‘trunk’, like SVN. That ought to be safe, since there's no one speaking for the trees.
- GauntletWizard 6y agoI look forward to the tech sector getting into fights with The Lorax, or more seriously, the Sierra Club.
- Sohcahtoa82 6y agoThe Lorax would like a word with you.
- el_nahual 6y agoIt doesn't really matter which makes "more sense." You could call it the canon branch, the root branch, the trunk branch, the main branch, the master branch, whatever. The point is that the word master, in this context, has a different etymology that the word master in say, a database. Now, that might not matter: if you care about changing the name of the branch you probably care about the way the name makes people feel, not the etymology of the word, and perhaps that's a good argument (personally I don't know and don't really care). Nonetheless, the etymology of the word is a factual statement, so I was correcting a poster who was assuming it was an analogy to a different context.
- headhuntermdk 6y agowords do matter.. if they didn't, none of us on the thread would be talking about it. You can't splain away how a person from a different group feels or why. What is nice about other SCM systems like Mercurial, Fossil, CVS, SVN.. or basically anything not Git.. is that the language is clear and not offensive to anyone. It really is that simple